header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 May 2014
Issue: 7605 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Disclosure & inspection of documents—Order for disclosure—Permission of court

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Tchenguiz and another v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWHC 1315 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 191 (Apr)

Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Eder J, 29 Apr 2014

Permission of the court is required for disclosure under CPR 31.22(1)(b) to provide to counsel, not instructed in the case, for the purposes of obtaining independent advice.

Alex Bailin QC, Anton Dudnikov & John Robb (instructed by Shearman & Sterling LLP for the claimants. James Eadie QC, James Segan & Katherine Hardcastle (instructed by Slaughter and May) for the SFO.

CPR 31.22 provided: “(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed except where—(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public; (b) the court gives permission; or (c) the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
NLJ this week: Stealing virtual gold?
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
NLJ this week: Don’t let your LPA gather dust
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll