Disclosure Guidance Hearings – case update

The recent ruling in Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd & Ors v Eric Watson & Ors [2025] EWHC 1948 (Comm) (Voltaire) identifies useful practical points for Disclosure Guidance Hearings (DGH) - if a DGH departs significantly from the guidance set out in Paragraph 11 of Practice Direction (PD) 57AD, then the Courts are willing to depart from the default "costs in the case" principle in paragraph 11.5 of PD 57AD. Here we summarise what DGHs are, the case of Voltaire, and practical points to note. 

What are Disclosure Guidance Hearings?

DGHs are a mechanism in the Business and Property Courts intended to allow parties to seek disclosure-related guidance from the court. The court can provide guidance or make directions orders. DGH's can operate differently to formal applications; for example, under paragraph 11.3, the Court generally expects a legal representative responsible for disclosure to participate in discussions. The intention is to help parties save time and costs in the disclosure process (see AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd and another v JHoots Healthcare Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 2524 (Comm)).

Voltaire

DGHs are usually expected to: 1) be a maximum hearing length of 60 minutes with 30 minutes pre-reading; 2) have an application notice which specifies the point upon which guidance is sought; and 3) not require evidence.

However, this didn't happen in Voltaire. In the case, the hearing was listed for 2.5 hours and took slightly longer; both sides employed leading and junior counsel; and provided a substantial hearing bundle of 900-pages, including approximately 261 pages of correspondence; a case management bundle, witness statements and extensive skeleton arguments. 

Usually the costs of the DGH would be ‘costs in the case’, meaning they will be determined by which party is successful in the case overall. However, in Voltaire, the Court departed from costs in the case and ordered the Second Defendant to pay the Claimants’ costs, summarily assessed at £63,267.00 after a 10% reduction for limited success on some points.

The practical points for parties are:

1. the what - consider whether what you are seeking at a DGH is guidance and suitable for a DGH. The judge in Voltaire noted London & Quadrant Housing Trust & Ors v. WPHV Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1122 (TCC), in which the court said that DGHs were not the proper place for addressing questions of legal privilege.
2. the how - consider what conduct is appropriate for a DGH. In Voltaire, the court said the parties' conduct was more consistent with a heavily contested disclosure application rather than a DGH.

For more information about the law, technology and practice of disclosure, contact Tom Whittaker, Stacie Bourton, or David Hine.