B - Best evidence
14/7/20
HANCOCK v PROMONTORIA (CHESTNUT) LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 907
The fact that an assignee relied on a heavily redacted copy of an assignment did not establish a substantial dispute sufficient to enable the borrower to set aside a statutory demand. The court was entitled to rely on a witness statement from a solicitor exhibiting the redacted copy assignment and confirming that the loans made to the borrower had been assigned to the assignee [52]. A party relying on a contract should provide an explanation of the nature and extent of any redactions and the reasons for making them. In general, irrelevance is insufficient. There must be some additional feature such as privacy or confidentiality [74]. On the facts of the case, any failure to do so had not caused injustice to the borrower [78]. In a different case a court might conclude that it could not safely construe a redacted document [91].
30/1/20
PROMONTORIA (OAK) LTD v EMANUEL [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch)
A trial judge had been entitled to find on the evidence before him that a copy deed of assignment which had been heavily redacted had been properly executed. Considers the best evidence rule [40]. The judge had been wrong not to require production of an unredacted copy of the deed of assignment because there were inconsistencies in the evidence as to the identity of the assignee. Also considers principles to be applied in redacting documents on grounds of confidentiality [58]. The judge had wrongly concluded that the redacted passages were irrelevant and had overlooked the relevance of an underlying sale and purchase agreement which had not been disclosed. The judge should have ordered immediate production of the relevant documents.