Standard Disclosure vs Extended Disclosure (Disclosure Pilot PD 57AD)
Comparing standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 with the extended disclosure models under Practice Direction 57AD (the Business and Property Courts Disclosure Pilot) — now permanent from 1 October 2022.
Overview
Disclosure requires parties to identify and share documents relevant to the dispute. In ordinary multi-track proceedings outside the Business and Property Courts (BPC), standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 applies: each party must disclose documents on which they rely, documents that adversely affect their own case, documents that adversely affect another party's case, and documents that support another party's case. The duty is to search for documents within the party's control that a reasonable and proportionate search would be expected to find. In the Business and Property Courts, Practice Direction 57AD (formerly the Disclosure Pilot, now permanent) replaced standard disclosure with a tailored 'extended disclosure' regime. Parties must agree a Disclosure Review Document (DRD) identifying issues for disclosure and choose one of five Models (A–E) for each issue. Model C ('Request-led search') and Model D ('Narrow search') are the most commonly ordered alternatives to the full Model E ('Wide search') approach akin to old-style standard disclosure.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Standard Disclosure (CPR 31.6)
Pros
- Familiar and well-understood — extensive case law on the scope of reasonable search
- Applies automatically without the need for a separate DRD or model selection exercise
- Proportionate for most civil claims — balances thoroughness with cost
- Electronic disclosure practice established by the Sedona Principles and Practice Direction 31B
Cons
- Can be disproportionately wide for highly complex or document-heavy cases
- No formal mechanism to tailor the search to specific issues before disclosure occurs
- Adverse document duty requires disclosure of damaging documents — wide search obligations
- Does not apply in BPC proceedings (replaced by PD 57AD since 1 January 2019)
Best For
Straightforward to moderately complex multi-track claims outside the Business and Property Courts, particularly personal injury, professional negligence, and debt recovery.
Extended Disclosure — PD 57AD Models (BPC)
Pros
- Tailored to the actual issues in dispute — avoids disproportionate disclosure on uncontested points
- Parties negotiate the scope before the exercise begins — reducing subsequent disputes
- Cost capped by the model chosen — Model B (key documents) is cheapest; Model E is closest to old-style standard disclosure
- Transparency — the DRD forms part of the court record and reduces subsequent disputes about scope
Cons
- Complex and time-consuming DRD preparation — requires significant solicitor input before disclosure begins
- Five models create scope for disagreement between parties about which model applies to each issue
- Additional procedural step: parties must file and serve the DRD and seek court approval if they disagree
- Only applies in BPC proceedings — not available in ordinary County Court or QBD claims
Best For
Complex commercial, financial, and technology disputes in the Business and Property Courts where tailored, issue-by-issue disclosure is more proportionate than a blanket standard disclosure exercise.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
For claims in the Business and Property Courts, engage proactively with the PD 57AD process — agree the DRD and propose realistic models before the first CMC to avoid a disproportionate court-imposed disclosure order. For claims outside the BPC, standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 applies, but parties should use correspondence before the CMC to agree the reasonable scope of the search and avoid satellite litigation.