header-logo header-logo

Damage control? (Pt 2)

10 January 2014 / David Burrows
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Confidentiality, privacy & disclosure: David Burrows examines the duty of disclosure under common law in the second of two articles

Part 1 of this series considered the confidentiality of information removed by one spouse from the other (after Imerman v Tchenguiz and ors [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2011] 1 All ER 555); and whether the rules which restrict disclosure in financial remedy proceedings are intra vires the rule-makers. This article looks at when a duty of disclosure arises at common law; at circumstances where confidentiality can be overridden; and whether confidentiality or privacy and a duty to disclose are mutually compatible. And where does this leave the lawyer who is advising the client who has taken his/her spouse’s documents?

When does the duty of disclosure arise?

It is not clear on what date in law (as distinct from the date of filing Form E per Imerman at paras [33] and [44] and FPR 2010 r 9.14(1)) a party’s duty to disclose arises. In Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424, [1985]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll