I don’t like these judgments where a good firm of solicitors is seriously mauled by the judge for what are seen retrospectively as project management failures in a vast eDisclosure exercise. It is hard to be kind in cases where a rule has been broken or overlooked, or where solicitors are punished for the aggressive taking of bad points, but one has to sympathise when, in an exercise involving 25 million documents of which 10 million are unique, the judge concludes that “something has gone wrong”. Let those who think they could have done better cast the first stone.
The case is RBS Rights Issue Litigation  EWHC 3433 (Ch) (26 November 2015)
and I am, as so often, obliged to Gordon Exall who not only publishes articles about new cases very promptly in his Civil Litigation Brief, but takes the trouble to draw my attention to those with an eDisclosure element in them.
One’s heart sinks at a judgment beginning “Further to the eighth CMC in this matter…” although (if you can get prompt hearing dates) it makes sense to seek the court’s directions (or indulgence) where there are many issues at stake and much to argue about. Indeed, the ante-penultimate paragraph of the judgment reads: Continue reading