Redactions in Disclosure

Umkomaas

nosferatu1001 said:

Yep, thats how I see it as well. 
Unilateral to me would mean it would have to be with the agreement of the court what can be redacted. Not up to one party on their own. Nothing to do with the landholder. 

But isn't the landholder the only other party with a direct interest in the contract?  A bilateral document, not a unilateral one. 

DoaM

nosferatu1001 said:

Yep, thats how I see it as well. 
Unilateral to me would mean it would have to be with the agreement of the court what can be redacted. Not up to one party on their own. Nothing to do with the landholder. 

/pedant-alert ... if an action requires the agreement of another party then it isn't unilateral.

nosferatu1001

"not" unilateral was what I meant
Unkomass - the other contracting party isnt a party to the claim, so almost certainly when they say "unilateral" they are referring to the parties in the claim, nothing else. 

Umkomaas

I think a number of courts should reject the proposition before we write it off. Test it out. Even throwing an unprimed hand grenade into a crowd creates panic. Let's see how a PPC deals with one!  As BWL are doing, I think we should milk the opportunity this possibly helpful judgment presents. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. 

All is fair in love and war private parking.  😊

Coupon-mad

Some milking will be done!    I've seen far too many redacted contracts recently.

bargepole

I had a case in 2018, assisting a motorist to successfully bring a DPA breach claim against CEL. They, the defendants in that case, produced a document from the landholder, authorising Creative Car Parks to manage the parking, and a further document which purportedly transferred that authority from Creative to CEL. But the redactions in that second document made it impossible for the DJ to find that there was a valid contract which CEL could rely upon. This from the approved Judgment:

11. Those two documents are helpful in that they plainly show that Fusion Lifestyle had entered into a contractual relationship with Creative in order to provide a scheme for parking management in respect of this particular carpark.  Alongside those documents, the defendants produced a document which is headed, ‘Supply of Services Contract’, between Creative Contracts Car Park Ltd, trading as Creative, thereby creating to the link between the first two contracts I have described and this one, and as the other contracting party, Civil Enforcement Ltd.  The recitals within the agreement set out that Creative provides carpark management services and Creative wishes to appoint CEL to conduct those services in respect of enforcement of parking restrictions at carparks.

 

12. There are then some definition clauses with some redactions followed by some further contractual provisions, again with a redaction which must relate to commercially sensitive information because it falls under the charges and payments subcategory.  The definitions and interpretations section by contrast could not possibly contain, in my judgement, sensitive information, so I am unsure as to why that section has been redacted.  However, most importantly what has also been redacted within that document are the signatures of Creative and Civil Enforcement Ltd and most importantly, says the claimant, the date upon which that arrangement was concluded.  

13. As such, based on that analysis I accept the submission made by the claimant that the documentation provided does not show that the benefit of the two initial contracts between Fusion Lifestyle and Creative have been assigned or subcontracted, or that Civil has been instructed by Creative to carry out services on their behalf at the relevant time prior to the issue which arose in respect of the alleged infringement by Mr Clay leading to the subsequent attempts by Civil to secure payment of the excess parking charges levied in respect thereof.

During the proceedings, when this redacted document was being examined by the DJ, he said 'well, I can't determine anything from this. But no doubt Mr Ritchie (CEL's barrister) will now hand up an unredacted copy'. He then held out his hand, palm upwards, towards Mr Ritchie, who spluttered, and then sheepishly said 'I'm sorry sir, they haven't furnished me with one'.

Fruitcake

@bargepole, do you have the case details please (judge, court, case number)? I have just added the comments from the Hancock case to lotuslady's thread who has a redacted contract, so hopefully this point will be tested in her case. Adding the case above to her WS might assist as well.

bargepole

Fruitcake said:

@bargepole, do you have the case details please (judge, court, case number)? I have just added the comments from the Hancock case to lotuslady's thread who has a redacted contract, so hopefully this point will be tested in her case. Adding the case above to her WS might assist as well.

I have attached the PDF of the Approved Judgment below, please feel free to use it:

Fruitcake

bargepole said:

Fruitcake said:

@bargepole, do you have the case details please (judge, court, case number)? I have just added the comments from the Hancock case to lotuslady's thread who has a redacted contract, so hopefully this point will be tested in her case. Adding the case above to her WS might assist as well.

I have attached the PDF of the Approved Judgment below, please feel free to use it:

Thanks. I have posted this info over on lotuslady's thread.