Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Downloading documents ‘would take 100 days’

Lawyers for Mott MacDonald and Multiplex are locked in debate over which company documents should be disclosed for the £253 million trial, with Multiplex claiming it is impractical to hand over the “10 million or more” documents it has relating to the troubled project.

Concerns were also raised about how much commercially sensitive material could be disclosed.

The court was told that while Mott had about 600,000 relevant documents, Multiplex had more than 10 million.

The contractor said it had created a database of 5m of the most relevant, but it argued against sending over the files in full, claiming they would take “about 100 days” just to download.

Mott has also asked the court for permission for its consortium partners Connell Wagner and Sinclair Knight Merz to view all disclosed documentation. “We will need their assistance in defending these proceedings”, Mott’s lawyers said.

The High Court has ordered the firms to agree a viable solution. If this cannot be decided, the firms will go back before the court in late September.

Multiplex requested the case be run as an ‘e-trial’ but Mr Justice Coulson indicated this would be unlikely. Lord Justice Jackson criticised the contractor last year for having spent more than £1 million on photocopying for its trial with against steelwork firm Cleveland Bridge.

E-trial unlikely

Mr Justice Coulson acknowledged he might be “regarded as a dinosaur” as he suggested an e-trial was unlikely.

He told the parties he did not find the system user-friendly.

Mr Justice Coulson said: “It may be due to my computer illiteracy, but I find it very difficult to [work with] an e-bundle.”

Mott MacDonald’s counsel Andrew White QC added: “This has been experimented with on big cases and it has not gone well.”

It was suggested that while the majority of the material would be provided to the judge in hard copy, there may be a small number of bundles supplied electronically.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.