Inspection

Inspection

'Inspection' is the stage in the disclosure process during which the parties physically see documents:

•
disclosed by the other parties to the litigation (and which they have not objected to your inspecting)
•
referred to in a party's statement of case, witness statements, witness summaries and affidavits—see Practice Note: Disclosure—inspection—Inspection of documents referred to in statements of case, witness statements
•
ordered to be specifically disclosed and/or inspected under CPR 31.12—see: Specific disclosure and specific inspection—overview

As such, this is an important stage in the litigation and one which should be conducted thoroughly and carefully. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure: inspection, which provides guidance on:

•
documents that can be inspected
•
how to make a written request for inspection under CPR 31.15(a)
•
the circumstances in which it may not be possible to inspect disclosed documents under CPR 31.3 and CPR 31.19 (see also, below)
•
how to make an application for specific inspection under CPR 31.12
•
how inspection takes place under CPR 31.15 (considering, among other things, inspection of original documents, copy documents and electronic documents)
•
when

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Ministry of Justice publishes summary of responses to Open Justice Call for Evidence

The Ministry of Justice has published a summary of responses to its Call for Evidence on 'Open Justice: the way forward', which was issued on 11 May 2023. The document outlines feedback from 131 respondents across various stakeholder groups. Key themes include the reaffirmation of the open justice principle, calls for improved access to court listings and documents and discussions on the implications of remote observation and livestreaming of court proceedings. Respondents emphasised the need for greater transparency in the Single Justice Procedure and supported the centralisation of judgment publications. The summary also highlights the importance of enhancing public understanding of the justice system and making court information available in machine-readable formats.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s updated guidance on the Damages Claims pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZB and the Court of Appeal decision in Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Patel (damages); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

No police duty to protect from third party harm—applying the Tindall principles (Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock, HD and others v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this conjoined appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect Ms Woodcock and CJ from harm caused by a third party; and whether the police’s investigative duty, pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, can arise before the claimant has suffered ill treatment at the hands of a third party. This decision represents the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has been asked to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and has provided some important points of practical application to practitioners in this area. Written by Jennie Oborne, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Amendments in retrospect—Repair or replace? (R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)

Commercial analysis: An appeal was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the correct characterisation of a contract. The dispute related to whether two parties had varied an existing contract or rescinded and replaced it with a new one. The Court reviewed the applicable principles and decided that the agreements in question did constitute new agreements rescinding and replacing the former contracts. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News