Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Richard Stewart
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Stewart White
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Shardi Shameli
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Ewelina James
    • Maria Constantin
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Rachael Machado
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

Court of Appeal ruling on Court powers to order disclosure of material from personal devices

March 8, 2021By Preiskel & Co

On 20 January 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Phones 4U Limited v EE Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 116. It upheld the decision that, for the purposes of disclosure, the personal devices of the defendant’s employees and former employees containing relevant documents were under the defendant’s control. The court ordered those devices to be searched. This demonstrates the strength of the court’s power regarding disclosure and ensuring that all relevant documents are with the court to enable a fair trial.

Background of the case:

The claimant (the administrators for Phones4U Limited) alleged that the defendants (eight mobile network operator companies) entered anti-competitive arrangements by agreeing to terminate their individual agreements with Phones4U, which resulted in Phones4U going into administration. Phones4U therefore brought a claim for £1bn in damages.

Officers and employees of the defendants were suspected of receiving work-related emails regarding anti-competitive arrangements on their personal devices. At the case management conference, among other disclosure orders, some of the defendants were ordered to request that certain employees allow IT specialists engaged by the defendants to check their personal devices. This would allow the IT specialist to pass any relevant communications they would find to the defendants, who would then disclose these communications. The defendants appealed, firstly on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction for this kind of order. Secondly, the defendants relied on proportionality, claiming that involving IT specialists was not appropriate, proportionate, and was in breach of the privacy rights of the third parties involved.

The judgment:

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court answered the issue on jurisdiction by referring to the defendants’ control of the materials for disclosure. CPR 31.5(8) was interpreted broadly, allowing the court to give directions at any stage regarding disclosure, including the searches, the time periods and the places for the searches. The court was able to require the defendants to ask third parties for access to relevant documents for the purposes of making a search for relevant disclosure.

Regarding the proportionality and privacy issue, the court considered that it was the third parties who chose personal devices as a means for work-related matters. The court also stressed the fact that the circumstances involved individuals purposefully avoiding work-related devices for unlawful dealings. Therefore, the court’s order was a proportionate and appropriate application of CPR 31.5(8)(a), and if the defendant’s employees would reject the request, a more time consuming and expensive approach (such as specific disclosure under CPR 3.12) would have be enforced.

Please contact Robert Dougans if you have any questions relating to the above.

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets
    March 22, 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape
    March 22, 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill
    March 17, 2023
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU
    March 16, 2023
  • Inmarsat Takeover Provisionally Cleared for Take-Off
    March 10, 2023
  • EDPB’s Feedback on the New EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework
    March 6, 2023
  • UK Data Reform Bill to return to the House of Commons
    March 3, 2023
  • DCMS Publishes New Security and Privacy Principles for App Store Operators and Developers
    February 16, 2023
  • DPO’s Dismissal & Conflicts of Interest Under The EU GDPR – CJEU Ruling
    February 14, 2023
  • ICO – Change of Deadline for Reporting Breach Notifications for Communication Service Providers
    February 6, 2023
  • General EU Requirements for Cookie Banners – EDPB Task Force Report
    January 27, 2023
  • Ofcom Launches Investigation into BT Following Suspected Breaches of Consumer Protections Post Implementation of EECC
    January 27, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets 22 Mar 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape 22 Mar 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill 17 Mar 2023
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU 16 Mar 2023

Preiskel news

  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, quoted by IT Pro on the costs incurred by MNOs
  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, will be a panellist at GCCM Carrier Community 2023 on IOT
  • Jose Saras and Xavier Prida Awarded First Place as Data Protection Thought Leaders in the UK
  • Ronnie Preiskel chosen to judge 24 May 2023 The Tech Capital Global Awards
Preiskel tweets
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets. Find o… https://t.co/S7J7sX3kfs5 hours ago
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape. Find out more at: https://t.co/JN5P4COQ4f6 hours ago
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU. Find out more at: https://t.co/dOpC8u4wLf6 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy