Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Ors

Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Ors

The initial non-disclosure of a relevant email was an error, but it was corrected promptly and does not justify an independent re-review. The defendants are to propose a plan for reviewing the e-disclosure exercise to ensure compliance with the parameters set out in the judgment. No order is made for a witness statement from Mr Marun at this stage; the issue can be addressed at trial. The period for e-disclosure is not extended backwards, and no sanction provision is appended to the order regarding back-up tapes, but the court expects timely compliance.

Parties
Claimant: Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & 21 Others; Defendant: Xstrata Limited; Defendant: Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling on E Disclosure and Related Directions
Outcome
Application for independent re-review refused; directions given for defendants to propose a review plan; other applications refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, E Disclosure, Standard Disclosure, Document Review, Case Management
Civil Procedure Disclosure E Disclosure Standard Disclosure Document Review Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & 21 Others

Claimant

Xstrata Limited

Defendant

Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling on E Disclosure and Related Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be ordered to procure an independent re-review of their disclosure process
  2. 2 Whether the deletion of emails from Mr Marun’s account requires a witness statement at this stage
  3. 3 Whether the relevant period for e-disclosure should be extended backwards

Ratio Decidendi

The initial non-disclosure of a relevant email was an error, but it was corrected promptly and does not justify an independent re-review. The defendants are to propose a plan for reviewing the e-disclosure exercise to ensure compliance with the parameters set out in the judgment. No order is made for a witness statement from Mr Marun at this stage; the issue can be addressed at trial. The period for e-disclosure is not extended backwards, and no sanction provision is appended to the order regarding back-up tapes, but the court expects timely compliance.

Court Disposition

Application for independent re-review refused; directions given for defendants to propose a review plan; other applications refused.

Orders

  • Defendants to consider the judgment and propose within 14 days a plan for reviewing e-disclosure to ensure all relevant documents are disclosed; claimants may comment within 14 days of receipt.
  • No order for a witness statement from Mr Marun at this stage.