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
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Richard Stewart
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Mark Clough
    • Stewart White
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Shardi Shameli
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Ewelina Korgol
    • Maria Constantin
    • Sophia Yakhno
  • 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
  • Claim against NHS Trust for breach of DPA 1998 and misuse of private information dismissed
    April 28, 2022
  • TikTok Class action for the Misuse of Child Personal Data
    April 28, 2022
  • ICO consultation on draft guidance for the research provisions within the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018
    April 20, 2022
  • European Strategy for Artificial Intelligence – a framework to regulate AI and its potential impact on the UK
    April 19, 2022
  • Meta hit by 17 million euro fine by Irish regulator
    April 19, 2022
  • Ofcom has mandated that telecoms providers ensure British Sign Language (BSL) for 999
    March 18, 2022
  • Ofcom publishes statement on the future of telephone numbers
    March 15, 2022
  • German court sends biometric data questions to the ECJ
    February 23, 2022
  • Meta fined £1.5m by CMA
    February 7, 2022
  • International data transfer agreement and addendum laid before Parliament
    February 4, 2022
  • CMA publishes statement of scope in music and streaming market study
    February 1, 2022
  • Google Privacy Sandbox faces European Commission complaint from German publishers
    January 24, 2022

The Preiskel Blog

  • Claim against NHS Trust for breach of DPA 1998 and misuse of private information dismissed 28 Apr 2022
  • TikTok Class action for the Misuse of Child Personal Data 28 Apr 2022
  • ICO consultation on draft guidance for the research provisions within the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 20 Apr 2022
  • European Strategy for Artificial Intelligence – a framework to regulate AI and its potential impact on the UK 19 Apr 2022

Preiskel news

  • Daniel Preiskel and Xavier Prida lecturing to Academia Mexicana del Derecho Informático and Abogado Digital
  • Preiskel & Co advises Mexico-based premium content production company Dopamine
  • Danny Preiskel was ranked as a Global Elite Thought Leader in Telecoms & Media by WhosWhoLegal Data 2022
  • Danny Preiskel featured in GCCM (Global Carrier Community Magazine)
Preiskel tweets
  • @jwrosewell @m4aow @w3c @IABTechLab Our pleasure!63 days ago
  • RT @jwrosewell: Great work from @Preiskel and the whole @m4aow team. Thank you. Much for @w3c, @IABTechLab, and others to consider in this…63 days ago
  • RT @TC_4KBW: Google’s battle with publishers shows that at every turn it seeks to block others from competing. it blocked header bidding, b…63 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 2022 | Site map | Legal notices | Privacy | Cookie Policy | Privacy | Fraud Notice