Referring to the case of Chadwick v. Bowman: ‘…. the essential fact was that certain letters which the defendant had received, and copies of letters which he had written, had been at some stage destroyed by the defendant, and in order to replace them the defendant obtained from the third party, from and to whom they had been written, copies, which therefore would be available as secondary evidence of the original documents which he himself had lost or destroyed. The court said, accordingly, that these copies, the mere replacements of something which he would have had to produce himself, must be produced.’
Judges:
Chadwick v. Bowman
Citations:
[1959] 1 WLR 702
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Chadwick v Bowman CA 1886
The true question as to whether translations of a privileged document themselves attract privilege, is whether the translations ‘really’ came into existence for the purposes of the action. ‘I think that danger would follow if the privilege against . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited CA 20-Jul-2001
Documents had been translated from the Japanese, for the purposes of the litigation. The claimant refused disclosure, arguing that they were privileged, and protected from disclosure, having been prepared for the court proceedings.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Legal Professions
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196687