You need to:-
Check what has been received, ensuring that the filename of each disclosed document refers to the description, date, and prefixed disclosure number of that document on the disclosure list provided by the other side
Review each document received for authenticity
If the documents disclosed purport to be all the disclosable documents the other side has, review for completeness
Review for usefulness
Preserve original disclosure
Initially load the documents received to a temporary folder so that you can check them before you move them to their final location (such as a document management system you are using or a set or ordinary computer folders which you are using for the case). If you are at the Statements of Case ("pleadings") stage and you are sent key documents with the Statement of Case they should be listed in the Statement of Case with unique references - e.g. Resp-1, Resp-2, Resp-3 etc. if the other side is the Respondent - which should be included in their filenames. If there is just a number without a prefix then you should add the prefix (e.g. Resp-) to the copies in your temporay folder so that the copies of documents disclosed to you do not end up being confused with document copies you are disclosing. Similarly if further documents are later disclosed with just a numbered list of them, ensure that the number, prefixed by an identifying letter (e.g. R if the other side is the Respondent), is included in the filenames - e.g. R-41.
Normally the filename for documents sent with a list will contain the same concise document description as is used to refer to the document in the list but occasionally the filenames may contain little more than the disclosure number in which case you should update the filename of the file in your temporary folder so that it contains the concise description and date from the list.
If the other side has sent you PDFs containing multiple documents, you will first need to extract the individual documents. Or you might have been sent paper copies of documents in which case you will first have to scan each of them in as a individual PDF.
Some of the documents you receive from the other side at the main disclosure of documents stage might be the same as documents they previously supplied earlier on (e.g. if the tribunal procedure requires an "initial disclosure" before the main disclosure). If a new document copy received really is identical, you could just add the unique reference to the copy already stored (after its existing prefix) if that is easier. For example if R-50 is actually the same document as document R-4 previously supplied, you can just rename the existing document so that instead of commencing with just R-4 it now commences with R-4 R-50. This may save you time scanning if you have received the documents in paper form. Make sure that the first prefix (R-4 in this case) is always the prefix of the actual document copy. Before you decide that a document copy you have received is the same as a copy you already have, check carefully that it really is the same. The recipient of a letter might have made a hand-written annotation on it, for example, so that although, at first glance, the copy disclosed by each party may appear to be the same, on closer inspection they are in fact different, so that the document copy just received should be stored as a separate document after all.
Most documents consist of typed text and, providing the copy already loaded is clear, it is not necessary to store an identical new copy received just because it is very slightly clearer (you can just add its reference prefix after the existing prefix). However if a document copy received is a photo, plan, or diagram and it is clearer than the copy already stored then you should normally store the new copy.
If the other side have sent you computer files each one with a filename named with a concise descriptive name e.g. R-21 Letter Smith to Jones 22 May 2020.pdf then there should be no dispute later about what was disclosed, but if the documents have been sent in some other, less satisfactory, form it may be wise to confirm with the other side exactly what they have disclosed to guard against the possibility of disputes arising later (perhaps arising just before the final hearing when the issue of what documents can be included in the Final Hearing Bundle arises). If documents have been disclosed in paper form, one of the problems which can arise is that there may be a dispute later over whether a particular document was in fact disclosed. When the Final Hearing Bundle is being compiled a party, the Applicant say, may wish to include a document, the Respondent may object saying that it was not previously disclosed, the Applicant may point to the document being on the list sent when documents were disclosed and say that they are sure that they sent a copy of everything on the list and, in any case, if they had not sent a copy of that particular document why did the Respondent not raise this at the time and ask for a copy? The Respondent may reply that because copies were received in paper form, and the description of documents on the list was a bit cryptic they had thought that another document, a copy of which was received, was the one being referred to on the list. To guard against such possible disputes it is good practice, whenever the form of documents disclosed by the other side raises any doubt, to send back to the other side copies of the documents they have disclosed (either all documents they have disclosed or some particular category where there is doubt), after you have renamed them in your temporary folder so that they all have a concise descriptive name and the date - e.g. A-2 Letter Smith to Jones 22 May 2020.pdf and ask the other side to confirm that they agree that this is indeed all the documents they have disclosed (or disclosed in that category).
The directions issued by some tribunals do not require disclosure lists to be numbered and, although it is always good practice to number them even it the tribunal does not require this, you may find that the other side have sent you a disclosure list which is unnumbered. In this case also you can yourself add numbers to the filenames and send them back explaining that you have added numbers for ease of future reference.
The question of whether a document is authentic (genuine) is distinct from the question of whether what the document says is accurate. For example, say the other side had disclosed a letter written to you at some time in the past, which contains a complaint that you had caused an obstruction by parking your car in a particular place at a particular time on a particular date. If you received the letter at the time but you dispute the accuracy of what it says, the letter is still authentic – i.e. it is a genuine copy of a letter actually written on the date it bears by the person whose name appears in the signature and sent out the same day or shortly thereafter. If, however, you think that the letter is a fabrication – that it is not a genuine copy of a letter written on the date it bears because, say, you didn’t receive it at the time and it gives as your address an address which you didn’t move to until three years after the date the letter was supposed to have been written - that would be an example of a document which is not authentic. It is not uncommon for parties to dispute the accuracy of what historical documents say but relatively unusual for the authenticity of a document to be challenged.
Traditionally the courts had very strict rules about what documents could be admissible as evidence and documents had to be formally proved to be authentic by being "produced" at the final hearing by a witness who could say what the document was and where it had come from. But the general approach now, in both civil courts and other civil tribunals, is that documents disclosed by either party are normally assumed to be authentic unless the other side specifically challenges the authenticity of a particular document.
You therefore need to consider whether you need to challenge the authenticity of any of the documents which are disclosed by the other side.
Although it depends, to a certain extent, on the type of legal proceedings, potentially documents will be disclosed at four stages before the final hearing:-
As part of a Land Registry application or during the pre-action correspondence phase (generally documents produced in this phase, before formal legal proceedings have actually commenced, are produced voluntarily or as a necessary part of a process without their disclosure actually being formally ordered by a tribunal) or
At the initial Statements of Case stage and/or at an "initial disclosure" stage
At the main Disclosure of Documents stage
Late disclosure - occasionally, despite searching, a document which should have been disclosed is missed at the main Disclosure of Documents stage so it is disclosed as soon as it comes to light
Whenever the other side is disclosing documents to you, you should consider whether you need to challenge their authenticity, but if the other side is disclosing documents to you at the main Disclosure of Documents stage or later you should consider whether you need to also consider the question of their completeness because at that stage they are purporting to have disclosed all relevant (non-privileged) documents to you (or all documents in particular categories depending on what the tribunal has ordered). You should consider whether there are indications that in fact not all relevant documents, which they other side has, have been disclosed. For example they may have disclosed an internal email which responds to a report but have not disclosed the report itself. Or perhaps the body of an email is provided, and you can see from it that there were attachments, but the attachments themselves have not been provided. Or you might have special knowledge which means that you know, or strongly suspect, that the other party has relevant documents which they have not disclosed. The other side has a duty to comply with any order the tribunal makes about disclosure, searching for relevant documents, but they may genuinely not be aware of the existence of certain documents until you specifically ask them to disclose them. For example if the other party is an organisation and you attended a meeting with them you may have noticed a particular employee of that organisation taking notes so you know that those notes exist but the person in the organisation dealing with its disclosure obligations may not be aware of that until you ask them to disclose those notes.
Generally speaking a party has to provide copies of relevant documents unless it no longer has them and it no longer has control over them. If a party has sent documents to their bank for safe keeping, for example, those documents are still under their control because they have the power to require the organisation holding them to return them. And even if the organisation is keeping documents such as deeds for unregistered land as security for a loan, the party still has the power to require the organisation to provide copies. So that is not a valid reason for failing to provide copies of them.
You may want to use some documents disclosed by the other side and, especially in the case of photos, their metadata. Different tribunals have different specific rules but the general approach is that a party which intends to rely on a specific item of metadata is expected to make that clear by, for example, sending a PDF "print" of the image with accompanying metadata to the other side in good time.
As a precaution against any later disputes, keep carefully the original disclosed documents and list. If the other side should later say that they will be relying at the Final Hearing on a document you think you have not seen before which is not stored in your folders, and the other side insist that that it was disclosed, you need to be able to go back and check the original materials provided.
Disclaimer
This information page is designed to be used only by clients of John Antell who have entered into an agreement for the provision of legal services. The information in it is necessarily of a general nature and will not be applicable to every case: it is intended to be used only in conjunction with more specific advice to the individual client about the individual case. This information page should not be used by, or relied on, by anyone else.
The information on this page about specific computer techniques is provided for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate and up to date at the time it was written but no responsibility for its accuracy, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by me. You should satisfy yourself, before using any of the techniques, software or services described, that the techniques are appropriate for your purposes and that the software or service is reliable.
This page was lasted updated in May 2026. Disclaimer.