Lucaya Trustees Limited and Anor v Vistra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2021] JRC 320 (20 December 2021)

Lucaya Trustees Limited and Anor v Vistra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2021] JRC 320 (20 December 2021)

The court held that requiring the plaintiffs to review 1.5 million documents was disproportionate. Permission was granted to revise search terms for the first plaintiff's documents, as this would still capture relevant material and was consistent with the defendant's own protocol. However, the application to revise search terms for the second plaintiff was refused due to concerns about late data extraction and lack of evidence. The use of technology assisted review was permitted for the second plaintiff provided the process was explained in the affidavit of discovery. The application to limit review of documents identified as relevant by technology for the first plaintiff was refused due...

Citation
[2021] JRC 320
Parties
Plaintiff: First Plaintiff; Plaintiff: Second Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Vary Discovery Order
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Electronic Discovery, Variation of Court Orders, Proportionality in Discovery, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Trusts Tax Electronic Discovery Variation of Court Orders Proportionality in Discovery Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Second Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Vary Discovery Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to vary the discovery protocol and search terms for electronic discovery
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to use technology assisted review to limit manual review of documents
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to limit review of documents identified as relevant by technology

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that requiring the plaintiffs to review 1.5 million documents was disproportionate. Permission was granted to revise search terms for the first plaintiff's documents, as this would still capture relevant material and was consistent with the defendant's own protocol. However, the application to revise search terms for the second plaintiff was refused due to concerns about late data extraction and lack of evidence. The use of technology assisted review was permitted for the second plaintiff provided the process was explained in the affidavit of discovery. The application to limit review of documents identified as relevant by technology for the first plaintiff was refused due...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Time for discovery extended to 17 December 2021 for the plaintiffs.
  • Plaintiffs permitted to revise search terms for first plaintiff's documents as proposed.