header-logo header-logo

08 August 2013
Issue: 7572 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Disclosure

Tchenguiz and another v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and others and other cases [2013] EWHC 2297 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 357 (Jul)

It was settled law that litigation privilege would attach to a document where the document had been produced for the dominant purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, or of conducting or aiding in the conduct of such litigation. If the documents were so privileged, then subject to any loss or waiver of privilege, the privilege could not be overridden by any other public interest. The mere fact that a document was produced for the purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, or of conducting or aiding in the conduct of such litigation was not sufficient to founder a claim for litigation privilege. It was only if such purpose was one which could properly be characterised as the “dominant purpose” that such claim for litigation privilege could properly be sustained.

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll