header-logo header-logo

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

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll