- Senior judge leans on recent MIR ruling about advocates’ disclosure duties
- Says it is ‘definitely not for the client’ to decide what is relevant
- Warns ‘fearful mistakes’ made in ‘very well known cases across the water’
- Tells parties ‘the words Post Office come to mind’ in document debate
- Urges Manx lawyers to ‘get a grip’ on evidence in high-stakes civil claim
The First Deemster has delivered a pointed warning to Manx lawyers about their duties over disclosure, name-checking the Post Office scandal – as he pressed advocates to take firm control of documents in the £90m Lord Street litigation.
During a hearing on 5 November in the long-running redevelopment dispute, First Deemster Andrew Corlett repeatedly referred to his recent 21-page judgment in a case known as MIR, which he said set out ‘in some detail’ how advocates should approach disclosure.
He remarked that it was ‘quite a long judgement’ for him and emphasised that it urged parties to agree matters wherever possible rather than rely on the court to referee every dispute.
The Lord Street case has become a lightning rod for broader concerns about governance and transparency on the island, with development company Sondica Group Inc., claiming negligent misstatement and misfeasance in public office after its plans for a major scheme on the former bus station site in Douglas were derailed.
The £90 million case has triggered fresh questions over the Isle of Man’s governance and financial oversight as Europe’s anti-money laundering body prepares for its next inspection.
Outside of the courtroom, sources have told Expose.News that there is a ‘very real risk’ the island will almost certainly be placed on MoneyVal’s grey list if systemic failings are not addressed – a move that could have long-term economic and reputational consequences.
Against that backdrop, the latest hearing focused on specific disclosure requests, claims of missing documents and whether sworn affidavits should be ordered.
In submissions about affidavits of compliance, advocate Victoria Unsworth took the judge to authorities on solicitors’ duties, including passages she had highlighted for his convenience. But Deemster Corlett stressed that his own recent rulings already captured the key principle: that responsibility for disclosure rests squarely with the lawyers, not their clients.
He told the court that his judgement in MIR ‘sets out very fully’ the obligation of the advocate ‘to take charge of the whole issue of disclosure’ and that it is ‘definitely not for the client to make decisions about disclosure and to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant’.
Drawing on experience from beyond the island, he issued a stark warning about what can happen if lawyers do not impose discipline on the process.
‘That is where fearful mistakes have been made in very well known cases across the water, which we do not need to go into, but the words Post Office come to mind,’ he said, in an apparent reference to the Horizon IT scandal which has rocked the British legal and political establishment.
For that reason, he said, ‘it is absolutely vital that the lawyers get a grip of disclosure as soon as they know there is going to be a claim, they take charge, they make the decisions’. Advocates must tell their clients very clearly what their obligations are, even where that leads to uncomfortable conversations.
Ms Unsworth agreed that such discussions can be challenging, observing that they are ‘difficult conversations when your client says, I do not want them to see this’.
The judge reminded her that an advocate is an officer of the court, underlining that the duty to ensure proper disclosure runs beyond the demands of any particular client.
Later in the hearing, as he delivered provisional comments on the parties’ draft order, Deemster Corlett reiterated his concern about repeated applications.
Referring again to MIR, he said ‘the court does not have the resources and the time to deal with contested disclosure applications’, stressing that ‘it is the advocate’s responsibility to grab hold of disclosure and deal with it’ and that most matters could and should be resolved by agreement.
Although he accepted criticism that the Lord Street disclosure exercise had moved ‘far more slowly than ought to have been the case’, he said he did not at present see evidence of any deliberate attempt to undermine the process.
But the combination of his MIR warnings, his Post Office reference and his insistence that lawyers must ‘take charge’ of disclosure sends a clear message to advocates on the island that the court expects tighter professional control in complex public interest litigation.
In the meantime, the specific disclosure application in the Lord Street case has been adjourned at the claimant’s request, with the judge once again urging both sides to resolve as much as possible between themselves before returning to the Rolls Building in Douglas.
