ICG Manager v Colliers International: High Court curbs "wholesale" redactions in negligent valuation dispute

A High Court judge has ordered the partial unredaction of hundreds of documents in a professional negligence claim brought against property consultancy Colliers International, finding that the claimants' "wholesale and unexplained" approach to redaction was inconsistent with their obligations under the extended disclosure regime.

Mr David Halpern KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Business and Property Courts, handed down judgement on 5 June 2026 in ICG Manager Limited & Ors v Collins International Valuation UK LLP [2026] EWHC 1346 (Ch), a case arising from an allegedly negligent valuation of a Runcorn shopping centre in 2018.

Background

The Second and Third Claimants, investment vehicles for the BBC Pension Trust and BUPA Pension Scheme, lent £17.5 million in 2015 against the Runcorn property, relying on a Colliers valuation of £28.44 million. A subsequent 2018 valuation of £23.75 million is the subject of the negligence claim. The claimants contend the true value was approximately £16.9 million and that, had they received a competent valuation, the property would have been sold by late 2018 or end of 2019, saving them some £6.2 million.

Colliers applied under PD 57AD paragraph 17.1 to compel unredaction of 462 documents produced during extended disclosure, arguing the claimants had redacted, without adequate explanation, all data touching on investments other than Runcorn and a second shopping centre at Carillon Court, Loughborough.

The redaction issue

Halpern KC confirmed the applicable test from Paragraph 16.1 of PD 57AD: redaction is permissible only where material is both irrelevant to the proceedings and confidential. Relevance, he affirmed, falls to be assessed by reference to the pleadings.

The central dispute concerned the claimants' counterfactual case, that ICG, as investment manager, would have sold Runcorn promptly upon receipt of a competent valuation. Colliers argued that without sight of ICG's decision-making across comparable assets, that counterfactual could not fairly be tested.

Halpern KC accepted that ICG's evidence, given by Mr David Mortimer, credibly demonstrated that investment decisions were made on a stand-alone basis rather than as part of a sector-wide strategy. Nevertheless, he concluded that the redacted data remained potentially relevant as similar fact evidence, capable of making the counterfactual more or less probable depending on how ICG handled comparable situations elsewhere.

The judge drew on O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 AC 534 and the guidance of Bright J in LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Société Générale SA [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm), the latter having warned explicitly that erring "on the side of redactions and confidentiality" and leaving receiving parties to challenge the decisions was unacceptable, producing additional costs and consuming court time.

The Hollander order

Rather than ordering wholesale unredaction, Halpern KC fashioned a targeted response. He made a so-called "Hollander" order, requiring unredacted copies of three categories of document to be provided to the defendant's legal advisers only: investment reports sent to the Second and Third Claimants; any redacted pages of internal emails relating to their other assets; and 41 pages of an ICG daybook maintained by a Mr Machin. Further production to the defendant or use at trial is subject to a further court order.

The judge declined to require unredaction of documents relating to third-party client assets, citing the confidentiality attaching to such data and the risk of proceedings becoming mired in collateral issues requiring analysis of each individual asset's circumstances.

He was candid about the risk of disproportionate satellite litigation, noting that the Application alone had generated costs of nearly £140,000 for Colliers and over £260,000 for the claimants.

Witness statement timetable

A related application to stay case management directions pending resolution of the disclosure dispute was largely refused. The claimants sought an extension to 25 June for service of witness statements, with the nine-day trial listed for early October 2026. Halpern KC extended time only to 12 June, describing that as a final order, and directed that statements should not extend to currently redacted data.

The Application was adjourned for further consideration following compliance with the Hollander order, with costs and consequential matters to be addressed at a further hearing.