header-logo header-logo

Under whose control?

13 September 2018 / Richard Highley , Richard Highley , Annabel Walker
Issue: 7808 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail
nlj_7808_walker

Can defendants assert litigation privilege over documents created for proceedings they controlled, but were not party to? Richard Highley & Annabel Walker report

  • Non-party controlling litigation found to have no right to assert litigation privilege.
  • Privilege over documents in the hands of non-parties reviewed.

In Minera Las Bambas SA and another v Glencore Queensland Limited and another [2018] EWHC 735 (Comm) the High Court considered whether defendants were entitled to assert litigation privilege over documents in their possession in circumstances where the documents in question were created for use in proceedings to which the defendants were not a party, but which they controlled on behalf of another, namely the claimants. The court held the defendants, as non-parties to the litigation, had no right to assert privilege.

Summary facts

Under a share purchase agreement (SPA), the defendants assumed partial control of litigation commenced by the claimants in Peru against the Peruvian tax authorities (‘the Peruvian proceedings’). In the Peruvian proceedings, the defendants therefore acted in the name of the claimants.

During standard disclosure

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