Somatra Limited v Sinclair Roche and Temperley (a Firm) etc: CA 26 Jul 2000

In an action between clients and their solicitors, the solicitors produced at an interlocutory hearing evidence derived from without prejudice discussions. The claimants applied for disclosure of all such documents, but this was rejected on the basis that the evidence would not be admissible at trial.
Held: The evidence having been introduced already by the defendants, it would not be just if they were not admitted in evidence in full at trial.
Clark LJ said: ‘The infringement in the present case is that Sinclair’s opened up issues on the merits which will be the very questions to be determined by the trial judge. It seems to me that no party who has taken part in without prejudice discussions should be entitled to use them to his advantage on the merits of the case in one context, but then assert a right to prevent its opponent from doing so on the merits at the trial.’

Judges:

Clark LJ

Citations:

Gazette 14-Sep-2000, Times 22-Sep-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 229, [2000] 1 WLR 2453

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .

Cited by:

CitedJamie v Management Solution Partners Ltd EAT 31-Jan-2006
The claimant received an email from his employers and resigned claiming unfair dismissal saying that it was repudiatory. The employers objected to the admission of the email into evidence saying that it was marked without prejudice and subject to . .
CitedRavenscroft v Canal and River Trust ChD 14-Sep-2016
Special Circumstances to appoint McKenzie Friend
An application was made to have a nominated person appointed as McKenzie friend and as advocate for the claimant. The claimant’s narrow boat had been seized by the defendant for non payment of licence fees and for not having a Pleasure Boat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147262