It is unnecessary for me to refer to that document in detail, but Mr Jervis set out the concerns which he had from the letter of 17 May. That led to a letter from Mr Jervis on 25 May, setting out certain ongoing matters of concern. They indicated that all disclosure would be provided in electronic format. The next relevant date is 17 May, when Kennedys wrote to Leigh Day indicating that the defendant had no hard documentation dating back more than six years.They indicated that a large amount of hard copy documentation post 2009 had been transferred into electronic format by scanning documents in and converting to pdf format, and that was featured on the single hard drive.When disclosure took place the defendant stated that there was no hard documentation going back more than six years. There were some mishaps with the defendant’s disclosure process.

A response was received that the letter had been passed to insurers. The claimants notified the defendant in November 2013. It is said that the use of the cleaner led to the death of one person and serious injury to others, including one person being left in a persistent vegetative state. The claimants bring an action relating to the use of a drain cleaner supplied by the defendant. The duty to advise a client to preserve evidence is one of the issues being considered in a webinar on the 19th November 2021 – Disclosure and Documentary Evidence. That question remains to be answered…” WEBINAR ON DISCLOSURE “The question arises what the defendant was doing shredding documentation in 2016 when they had been put on notice of a claim in 2015. The judge was considering the appropriate orders to make when it transpired that documents had been destroyed after the defendant had been notified of a claim against it. I am grateful to solicitor Thomas Jervis from Leigh Day for bringing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Ayannuga & Ors v One Shot Products Ltd EWHC 2930 (QB).

Radio silence pdf