It follows from the reasoning of the Strasbourg Court in A and others (2009) 49 EHRR 29, as interpreted by the House of Lords in AF (No 3)  3WLR74 that [a claimant] in civil proceedings attracting Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is obliged to afford [the defendant] sufficient disclosure to enable him to give effective instructions about the essential allegations made against [him].
The requirements of Article 6(1) are such that the information to be provided by the claimant must not merely be sufficient to enable the [defendant] to deny what is said against it. The [defendant] must be given sufficient information to enable [him] actually to refute, in so far as that is possible, the case made out against [him]. If a party is dissatisfied with a decision as to what information should be disclosed in such a case, an appeal would, at least in principle, represent an uphill task.
An appellate court would normally be reluctant to interfere with a first instance judge's determination of what has to be disclosed to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(1), although it would, of course, do so if satisfied that the judge had gone wrong in principle. If an appeal is to be mounted against such a decision, it would be sensible to ensure that the judge is given the opportunity to give a brief judgment explaining why he reached the conclusion that he did on the specific issue or issues which are sought to be appealed.
Per Lord Neuberger MR in Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (Rev 1)  EWCA Civ 483.
Professional conduct and regulatory bodies attracting the European Convention should ensure that the disclosure provisions of their rules comply with this test.
5th Edition » | Chapter 10