England and Wales Case Law

David Robert Smith v Sir Robert McAlpine

Permission for collateral use of the witness statements is granted because there are cogent and persuasive reasons, including strong public interest in the Inquiry's work and the need for a broad evidence base. The witnesses' concerns are addressed by safeguards in the amended order. The interests of justice require the statements' release for the Inquiry, subject to those safeguards. The original costs order is revoked and replaced after proper submissions from both parties.

Source excerpt

• Collateral use of witness statements
• Public interest investigations
• Blacklisting in employment
• Costs orders
• Witness confidentiality

Read case analysis

Smith v McAlpine

Smith v McAlpine [2024] EWHC 3408 (KB) (20 December 2024)

The High Court granted permission under CPR 32.12(2)(b) to use certain witness statement paragraphs for an independent inquiry into construction-industry blacklisting, with safeguards. It later revised costs against the applicant.

• Collateral use of witness statements
• Blacklisting in construction industry
• Public interest investigations
• Costs orders
• Cpr 32.12
• Collateral-use-of-witness-statements

Read case analysis

Elphicke v Times Media Ltd

Elphicke v Times Media Ltd [2024] EWHC 2595 (KB) (14 October 2024)

On discontinuance, the court reduced the defendant’s recoverable costs by 20% for admitted breaches of the collateral use rule and failure to preserve evidence.

• Collateral use of witness statements
• Failure to preserve evidence
• Costs on discontinuance
• Reporting restrictions
• Recusal
• Mandatory alternative dispute resolution (adr)

Read case analysis

Charles Elphicke v Times Media Ltd

On discontinuance, the court reduced the defendant’s costs by 20% for admitted collateral use of witness statements and failure to preserve evidence, and ordered ADR before assessment.

• Costs on discontinuance
• Collateral use of witness statements
• Preservation of evidence
• Alternative dispute resolution (adr)
• Judicial recusal
• Reporting restrictions

Read case analysis