If you are involved in litigation, you may now be required to obtain documents that you do not hold, do not control, and may not even have direct access to. This is the effect of a new power introduced under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026. Under CPR 31.12A, “the court may order a party to request any person to produce for disclosure and inspection any document which may support the case or adversely affect the case of any party to the proceedings.” What appears to be a relatively technical procedural change is, in reality, a meaningful shift in how disclosure operates in practice.
Traditionally, disclosure has been governed by a clear distinction. Documents within a party’s control, as defined under CPR 31.8, fall within standard disclosure obligations. Where documents are held entirely by a third party, a separate application must be made under CPR 31.17. That route is deliberately narrow. The court must be satisfied not only that the documents are likely to support or adversely affect a party’s case, but also that disclosure is necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs. In practice, that second limb creates a high threshold, meaning third-party disclosure has historically been the exception rather than the rule.
The introduction of CPR 31.12A sits between those two positions. It does not compel a third party to disclose documents, but it allows the court to require a litigant to take active steps to request them. In doing so, it removes the need to satisfy the more restrictive “necessity” requirement under CPR 31.17 and creates a more flexible route to obtaining potentially relevant material.
To understand how this operates in practice, it is helpful to consider a typical commercial dispute. A business provides services over a period of time and issues a series of invoices which remain unpaid. The claim appears straightforward. However, the underlying relationship is often more complex. Elements of the transaction may have been handled by agents or subcontractors. Operational records may be held by external providers. Financial information may sit with accountants. Communications may have passed through intermediaries. The evidential picture is therefore fragmented, with key documents sitting outside the immediate control of either party.
Under CPR 31.12A, the court may now expect a party to take steps to obtain that material. It is no longer sufficient simply to say that the documents are not held internally. The focus shifts to what has been done to request them and whether those steps were reasonable.
From a firm perspective, this creates a number of practical and strategic concerns. The most obvious is that the rule imposes an obligation on a party without providing a corresponding mechanism to compel compliance by the third party. A litigant may be ordered to make the request, but the third party remains free to refuse, ignore or delay. This creates a clear tension between the court’s expectation and what is actually achievable in practice.
There is also a risk that the rule introduces additional layers of complexity rather than simplifying the process. Whilst it may reduce the need for formal applications under CPR 31.17 in straightforward cases, it is entirely foreseeable that parties will make requests under CPR 31.12A, receive no meaningful response, and then find themselves forced back into the CPR 31.17 regime. In that sense, the rule may operate as an intermediate step rather than a complete solution.
Timing is another issue. Identifying relevant third parties, making requests, and following those requests through can take time, particularly where documents are held across different organisations or systems. If this exercise is left too late, it can disrupt the disclosure process and place a party at a disadvantage.
There are also evidential risks. Documents obtained from third parties may not align with the position a party has taken. They may reveal informal arrangements, inconsistencies or commercial realities that were not formally recorded. As with all disclosure, material that undermines a party’s case must still be disclosed, which can significantly alter the trajectory of a dispute.
The practical uncertainties surrounding the rule should not be overlooked. It remains unclear what will constitute sufficient compliance. Will a single request be enough, or will repeated follow-up be required? Will informal communications suffice, or will the court expect a more formal approach supported by evidence? What happens where a third party provides only partial disclosure, or none at all? These questions are likely to be worked out in practice over time, but in the interim they create an additional layer of risk for litigants.
From our experience in defending claims, the underlying issue is not new. Disputes frequently involve documents that sit outside the immediate control of the parties and only come into focus once disclosure is underway. What this rule does is formalise the expectation that those documents should be identified and pursued earlier, and places responsibility on the parties to take active steps to obtain them.
For clients, the implications are clear. When a dispute arises, it is no longer enough to consider only what documents sit within your own organisation. There needs to be a broader assessment of where relevant material may exist and who may hold it. This includes identifying all third parties involved in the underlying transaction, whether operationally, commercially or administratively.
Preparation is critical. Identifying those potential sources early allows steps to be taken while relationships remain workable and before positions become entrenched. Once a dispute has escalated, cooperation is often more difficult to secure, and the ability to obtain documents may be limited.
It is also important to approach any request for documents in a considered and structured way. The steps taken, and the way in which they are recorded, may themselves become relevant. Being able to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made can be essential where documents cannot ultimately be obtained.
At GSP Law, this forms a central part of how we assess disputes from the outset. The focus is not limited to the documents a client holds, but extends to understanding the wider evidential landscape and identifying potential gaps early. This allows us to manage risk proactively and avoid situations where our clients are placed in a reactive position later in the proceedings.
The introduction of CPR 31.12A reflects a broader shift within civil litigation. Disclosure is no longer confined to what you have. It extends to what you may be expected to obtain. For clients, the message is straightforward. If relevant documents exist, the court may expect them to be found, and being prepared for that expectation at an early stage is now an essential part of managing any dispute.
