LitSavant Ltd - Thinking outside the box ...
Current location: Home  > About Us  > Mark Dingle
Mark Dingle

Mark Dingle

LitSavant was established by Mark Dingle in 2010.

Mark has been working in the litigation support industry for over 11 years. His past employment includes two top 20 law firms and one of the largest service providers. In these roles Mark has managed edisclosure projects on behalf of leading financial institutions and insurers as well as high profile energy and pharmaceutical companies.

Mark was a founding member of LiST and a member of the LiST group committees responsible for their proposed "Revised Disclosure Statement", "Data Exchange Protocol", "Draft Technology Questionnaire" and "Practice Direction for the use of IT in Civil Proceedings".

Mark is currently a member of the working party chaired by Senior Master Whitaker charged with drafting a practice direction governing the handling and disclosure of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). This draft Practice Direction was recently favourably referred to by Lord Justice Jackson in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report.

DPA
Data Protection Act: this act implements a European Directive which among other things protects privacy and sets limits on what can be done with an individual's personal data.
more ...
DPA

Data Protection Act: this act implements a European Directive which among other things protects privacy and sets limits on what can be done with an individual's personal data.  In particular, it places limitations on the transfer of such data between jurisdictions.

Discoverable
Prior to the CPR the test under the rules was that any document "relating to any matter in question" was discoverable. The courts took a very wide view of what was covered by this. The test was laid down a long time ago when no-one had the quantities of paper they have now ...
Lord Justice Jacob (19 Jul 2007)

more ...
Discoverable

Prior to the CPR the test under the rules was that any document "relating to any matter in question" was discoverable. The courts took a very wide view of what was covered by this. The test was laid down a long time ago when no-one had the quantities of paper they have now…

…What is now required is that, following only a "reasonable search" (CPR 31.7(1)), the disclosing party should, before making disclosure, consider each document to see whether it adversely affects his own or another party's case or supports another party's case. It is wrong just to disclose a mass of background documents which do not really take the case one way or another. And there is a real vice in doing so: it compels the mass reading by the lawyers on the other side, and is followed usually by the importation of the documents into the whole case thereafter - hence trial bundles most of which are never looked at.

Lord Justice Jacob (19 Jul 2007)
Nichia Corp v Argos Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 741 (19 July 2007).

© 2018 LitSavant Ltd. All rights reserved.