Discovery is about finding the relevant facts before a case gets to trial. In practice it is also about finding more about the other side than they want known.
The law regarding costs is messy, giving the judge the power to screw the winner. See Costs in English Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law or go to the horse's mouth at PART 26 - CASE MANAGEMENT – PRELIMINARY STAGE - Civil Procedure Rules - https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26
Discovery ex Wiki
QUOTE
Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions.[2] Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.[3]
In England and Wales
This section needs expansion.
You can help by adding to it. (August 2010)The discovery process in the jurisdiction of England and Wales has been known as "disclosure" since the reforms to civil procedure introduced by Lord Justice Woolf in 1999.
Disclosure is for many types of cause of action (but not for example Personal Injury which has its own additional Parts of procedure rules to follow) governed by Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and its linked Practice Direction (PD) 31B. As in the United States, certain documents are privileged, such as letters between solicitors and experts.
The usual forms of discovery are general discovery and specific discovery since parties in issue are unlikely to reach agreements as to what ought to be disclosed. This reflects in the current discovery rules which put emphasis on compliance of time limit, rules on service, proper list of documents and rules on privileges set out in Part 31 of CPR and PD 31B. Once a party properly conducts general discovery process in accordance with discovery rules and procedures, documents are deem discoverable, i.e. documents are available for inspection. Inspectionability refers to procedural and legal elements: the former concerns clerical production of document; the latter concerns the relevance test (Peruvian Guano v nciaso Compagneiage (1881) 10 EWR 125 [ but see Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co ] ) and linkage test.
See also
UNQUOTE
Formal Discovery Gathering Evidence for Your Lawsuit Nolo.com
Is a general purpose article and clear.
PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - Civil Procedure Rules
PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31b
PRACTICE DIRECTION 31B – DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS - Civil Procedure Rules
This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 31
Contents of this Practice Direction
It's all there, in'it?Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co ex Wiki
Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55 is a foundational case in the law of evidence holding that a plaintiff party must disclose to a defending party "all documents in his possession or under his control relating to any matters in question in the action."[1]Facts
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants had made a contract with them for the sale of Peruvian guano and sued for specific performance of the agreement, damages for delay and an injunction.[2] The defendants took out a summons for further documents than were originally disclosed, were turned down repeatedly before appealing to the Court of Appeal.[3]Judgments
In his judgment, Lord Justice Brett famously held,"It seems to me that every document which relates to the matters in question in the action, which not only would be evidence upon any issue, but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may – not which must – either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. I have put in the words ‘either directly or indirectly’ because, as it seems to me, a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of enquiry which may have either of those two consequences."[4]
References