Obviously, none of us knows, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If it is the case that the PL has been "told" to produce all their emails, Whatsapps etc, involving City and going back to 2009 then it must have been on the application of City. In my experience, the complainant wouldn't routinely make allegations and, then, voluntarily disclose that quantity of material.
Assuming City asked for it, I would have expected lawyers for the PL to push back arguing irrelevance to the charges and/or that the request was disproportionately onerous. They may not have argued anything of the sort, of course, but, in that case, they wouldn't have been needed to be "told". And if the tribunal did order the disclosure, the arbitrators must have been persuaded that the request was neither irrelevant nor disproportionate. That would tell its own story. As usual, we have only a half-baked newspaper report to go on which is a poor starting point.
Indeed, the only part of the case to which this disclosure would be directly relevant, seems to me to be the non-cooperation charges but I guess it also goes to the bona fides of the whole process from decision to investigate, the investigation itself through to the decision to bring charges.
Only time will tell.
