I have just published an article whose heading was (or was meant to be) UTB v Sheffield United – interpreting PD51U in a way that makes it work.
As I was about to publish it, I half saw a mention of “PD31B”. That would be an unsurprising slip, since the Disclosure rules have been in Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules since 1999. My motto RTFR (Read the F*** Rules) is accompanied by another, RRTBBPUTBPI (Re-Read the Bloody Blog Post Umpteen Times Before Publishing It) and, alerted to the possibility of error, I duly re-read it umpteen times.
What I did not re-read, it seems, was the title, and it was there that PD51U had become PD31U. That meant that the url contained the error and, worse, that those who get email notification of my posts will have the uncorrected version on their emails.
I have corrected the title and replaced the tweets and LinkedIn posts. I decided against amending the url, because all the emails would then point to the wrong place.
My thanks, as so often, to the observant Jonathan Maas, who sent me a spluttering email entitled PD31u??????
eDisclosure Information Project 