11 March 2010 / Jonathan Cohen

Issue: 7408 / Categories: Features , Commercial

printer

mail-detail

Use it or lose it?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Jonathan Cohen considers the risks of using improperly obtained evidence

Bitterly contested divorce proceedings would not as a matter of course attract the attention of commercial litigation practitioners. But a vexed and long running set of divorce proceedings has raised a question which has exercised judges in both the Family and the Queen’s Bench Divisions of the High Court, and has brought into stark relief an issue with important ramifications for all litigators: how will the civil courts respond to a party’s attempts to prove its case using evidence which it ought not to have?

The question whether to use or to exclude evidence has also been considered by the Court of Appeal in a slightly different context; whether a party can rely on evidence of without prejudice discussions where there is a dispute about the interpretation of a written settlement agreement.

Vivan Imerman

The cases were Vivan Imerman v (1) Robert Tchenguiz (2) Vincent Tchenguiz (3) Tim McLean (4) Nouri Obadya (5) Sairosh Zaiwalla [2009] EWHC 2024 (QB); I v

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

Use it or lose it?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Jonathan Cohen considers the risks of using improperly obtained evidence

Bitterly contested divorce proceedings would not as a matter of course attract the attention of commercial litigation practitioners. But a vexed and long running set of divorce proceedings has raised a question which has exercised judges in both the Family and the Queen’s Bench Divisions of the High Court, and has brought into stark relief an issue with important ramifications for all litigators: how will the civil courts respond to a party’s attempts to prove its case using evidence which it ought not to have?

The question whether to use or to exclude evidence has also been considered by the Court of Appeal in a slightly different context; whether a party can rely on evidence of without prejudice discussions where there is a dispute about the interpretation of a written settlement agreement.

Vivan Imerman

The cases were Vivan Imerman v (1) Robert Tchenguiz (2) Vincent Tchenguiz (3) Tim McLean (4) Nouri Obadya (5) Sairosh Zaiwalla [2009] EWHC 2024 (QB); I v

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!

The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

back-to-top-scroll