Bank Notes

25/3/24

VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG [2024] EWHC 695 (KB)

Considers principles to be applied on an application under CPR r.31.22 to restrain collateral use of documents disclosed in proceedings.  On the facts the application based on commercial sensitivity was not sufficiently focussed and was rejected.  The court also considered an application for disclosure of the claimants’ funding arrangements [34] but decided that the application should be revisited after exchange of costs budgets and other information.

12/6/20

GARDINER v TABET [2020] EWHC 1471 (Ch) 

Considers principles to be applied on an application under CPR 31.17 for non-party disclosure of documents.

3/6/20

CARILLION PLC (IN LIQUIDATION) v KPMG LLP [2020] EWHC 1416 (Comm)

Considers principles for pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16 [66].  The application must not encompass documents which will only be relevant, if at all, as background, nor documents which might merely lead to a train of enquiry.  The documents must be likely to be within the scope of standard disclosure in regard to the issues which are likely to arise.  If a request is too broad, the court can modify the order appropriately [69]. It is sufficient that the documents will enable the pleadings to be more focused and avoid later amendments [76].  On the facts the court did not consider it appropriate to exercise its discretion to order pre-action disclosure [86].

20/5/20

CPOD SA v DE HOLANDA JUNIOR [2020] EWHC 1247 (Ch)

Reviews principles on which the court can make orders after proceedings have been started for early disclosure of information by a defendant.  Applications for disclosure of bank statements and for an interim order for an account, were dismissed.  There was no need for early disclosure before particulars of claim had been served, nor was it just and convenient to do so.

19/5/20

ZENITH INSURANCE PLC v LPS SOLICITORS LTD [2020] EWHC 1260 (QB)

Considers pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16, Norwich Pharmacal principles and CPR r 31.18.  The applications were dismissed because the evidence failed to explain why documents disclosed in response to an earlier application were inadequate, and to address basic requirements for relief.

13/5/20

TAYLOR WIMPEY UK LTD v HARRON HOMES LTD [2020] EWHC 1190 (TCC)

Considers principles to be applied on an application for pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16 [31].

7/4/20

FINE CARE HOMES LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 874 (Ch)

Explains arrangements made for a hearing by Skype [5].  The bank was ordered to disclose its file papers relating to its review of the mis-selling of an interest rate hedging product.  The documents were likely to be relevant to the issue of the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent financial adviser [31].  The documents were also admissible [36].  Emphasises the need for parties to liaise with a view to defining and narrowing issues on applications for specific disclosure [56].  Considers principles for the grant of permission to adduce expert evidence in IRHP mis-selling claims [61].  The court was likely to be assisted by expert evidence and permission was therefore granted.

18/3/20

INFEDERATION LTD v GOOGLE LLC [2020] EWHC 657 (Ch)

Considers principles to be applied when a confidentiality ring is established to limit access to disclosed documents [27].

3/3/20

ADDLESEE v DENTONS EUROPE LLP [2020] EWHC 238 (Ch)

Summarises principles to be applied on applications for disclosure of documents which would otherwise be privileged where it is claimed that privilege is lost under the so-called fraud exception [28], including the standard of proof [37] requiring the court to be satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case.

30/1/20

PROMONTORIA (OAK) LTD v EMANUEL [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch)

A trial judge had been entitled to find on the evidence before him that a copy deed of assignment which had been heavily redacted had been properly executed.  Considers the best evidence rule [40].  The judge had been wrong not to require production of an unredacted copy of the deed of assignment because there were inconsistencies in the evidence as to the identity of the assignee.  Also considers principles to be applied in redacting documents on grounds of confidentiality [58].  The judge had wrongly concluded that the redacted passages were irrelevant and had overlooked the relevance of an underlying sale and purchase agreement which had not been disclosed.  The judge should have ordered immediate production of the relevant documents.

23/10/19

FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY v AVACADE LTD [2019] EWHC 2779 (Ch)

An application made after 1 January 2019 in the Business and Property Courts to enforce compliance with a pre-existing order for disclosure should be decided in the light of the culture change made by the pilot scheme for disclosure in CPR PD51U.  On the facts all but two of the factors listed in paragraph 6.4 of PD51U were not met, so the application failed.

9/4/19

UTB LLC v SHEFFIELD UNITED [2019] EWHC 914 (Ch)

The Disclosure Pilot Scheme applies to all relevant proceedings in the Business and Property Courts, whether started before or after 1 January 2019, even in a case where a disclosure order was made before 1 January 2019 [17].

10/12/15

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY v  HECKEL [2015] EWHC 3606 (TCC)

The court dismissed an application for disclosure by a defendant of contract documents which the defendant and his solicitors claimed did not exist and were not in the defendant’s possession.  There was no reason for the court to go behind that denial.  The court also refused an application by the claimant to extend time for service of the particulars of claim.

5/11/15

PROPERTY ALLIANCE GROUP LTD v THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 3187 (Ch)

Documents recording discussions of a bank sub-committee set up to oversee regulatory investigations into LIBOR manipulation, were privileged because they were prepared by the bank’s solicitors, who attended the meetings to give legal advice when appropriate.  The documents formed part of a continuum of communications between lawyer and client, even if they did not expressly refer to legal advice.

1/4/15

RAWLINSON & HUNTER TRUSTEES SA v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2015] EWHC 937 (Comm)

Considers principles to be applied on an application under CPR 31.22(2), restricting or prohibiting the use of documents previously disclosed in proceedings which had been settled.

19/2/15

PROPERTY ALLIANCE GROUP LTD v THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 321 (Ch)

Considers principles to be applied on an application for inspection of a document in circumstances where production of the document for inspection may render the disclosing party liable for contempt in another jurisdiction.  On the facts RBS was ordered to allow inspection of a confidential attachment to a deferred prosecution agreement which it entered into with the US Department of Justice regarding LIBOR manipulation.

19/2/15

PROPERTY ALLIANCE GROUP LTD v THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 384 (Ch)

In addition to its order requiring disclosure of the attachment to the US Department of Justice deferred prosecution agreement, in a judgment which the court restricted from publication until 11 March 2014, the court ordered the bank to allow inspection  of 5 reports made by the bank to the Japanese Financial Services Authority which were potentially relevant to the issue of LIBOR manipulation.

13/11/14

TCHENGUIZ v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2014] EWCA Civ 1471

On the facts the judge had been right to order the appellant to pay indemnity costs of an application under CPR 31.22 for permission to use disclosed documents otherwise than in the proceedings in which they were disclosed.  But the judge had been wrong to suggest that the respondent to an application under CPR 31.22 should usually be entitled to a full costs indemnity.

10/11/14

SINGULARIS HOLDINGS LTD v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS [2014] UKPC 36, [2015] 1 AC 1675

The court can order production of information necessary for the administration of a foreign winding-up but will not do so if the local court with jurisdiction in the winding-up has no equivalent power.

11/7/14

IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (EUROPE) [2014] EWHC (Ch)