The rules on disclosure and inspection of documents in litigation are complex and often leave much room for debate. This is particularly true in the contentious area of unintended compulsory disclosure caused by a passing reference in a witness statement. The consequences of mentioning a document in evidence has long been a trap for the unwary, sometimes leading to crucial additional, unintended, disclosure. Recently, a judgment handed down by the English High Court cast further light on what documents may be subject to disclosure for the sake of being “mentioned” in the witness statement. The Court’s interpretation of the relevant procedural rules provides more certainty for legal practitioners and their clients alike as to the scope of disclosure and should serve as strong persuasive precedent in the offshore jurisdictions where broadly analogous procedural rules tend to apply.  In Hoegh & Anor v Taylor Wessing Llp & Anor1, a defendant sought an order for the production of a document/documents mentioned in four paragraphs of a witness statement in support of the claimant. The relevant rules required disclosure of a mentioned document, and included the proviso that a ‘document is mentioned where it is referred to, cited in whole or in part or there is a direct allusion to it.’ The document(s) sought was regarding a review that the claimants instructed PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to undertake in around March 2021, and the ground for disclosure was based on the fact that the witness statement made a direct allusion to it. In interpreting what constitutes “direct allusion”, the Court reviewed and relied on previous case law, including the English Court of Appeal’s...