header-logo header-logo

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

Under whose control?

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

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Employment boutique strengthens data protection and privacy offering with senior consultant hire

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’

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
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
back-to-top-scroll