Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm): CA 30 Mar 1999

Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US court was the best place to decide those questions. Legal privilege is not lost under English law because it cannot be claimed in another country: ‘To suggest otherwise would mean that a court, when deciding whether to uphold a claim for privilege, would need to be informed as to whether privilege could be claimed in all the countries of the world. . . The fact that under a foreign law the document is not privileged or that the privilege that existed is deemed to have been waived is irrelevant. The crucial consideration is whether the document and its information remain confidential in the sense that it is not properly available for use. If it is, then privilege in this country can be claimed and that claim, if properly made, will be enforced.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

Times 12-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1128, [1999] 3 All ER 154

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoBourns Inc v Raychem Corporation CA 17-Dec-1998
. .

Cited by:

CitedB and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
See alsoBourns Inc v Raychem Corporation CA 17-Dec-1998
. .
CitedBritish American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd v United States of America CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant appealed an order for its London solicitor to be examined in connection with proceedings in the US.
Held: A court should not make an order which was superfluous. The witness had now given his evidence. However, the foreign . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146043