The parties were involved in litigation concerning allegations of anti-consumer practices. It was agreed that commercially sensitive documents should be exchanged, but the terms protecting the confidences could not be agreed. The parties were also involved in proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal and with Ofcom, and were concerned that disclosure should not extend to lawyers involved in the other proceedings. Held ‘there is no justification for preventing the three lawyers who Virgin have instructed to represent them both in the High Court Proceedings and the CAT Proceedings from seeing the sensitive documents that have been disclosed in the former proceedings. ‘ In any event, given the public interest nature of the other proceedings, full disclosure across all proceedings might in any event be appropriate.
 EWCA Civ 612, Times 11-Jun-2008
England and Wales
Cited – Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd CA 1977
An action was brought by a disgruntled former employee. He had been summarily dismissed and had been escorted from the premises of his employers. In the first action he claimed damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment based on the latter . .
Cited – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Cited – Carter Holt Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging Ltd 2001
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) Lawyers had acted for a claimant in mediation proceedings with a defendant and had signed a comprehensive confidentiality agreement. The mediation resulted in a settlement. They were then instructed by another . .
Cited – Crest Homes Plc v Marks HL 1987
The plaintiffs brought two successive actions against the same defendants (Mr Marks and Wiseoak Homes Ltd) for breach of copyright. They obtained Anton Piller orders in both actions. The documents which the plaintiffs obtained from the defendants in . .
Cited – Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .
Cited – Merck and Co v Interpharm 1992
(Federal Court of Canada) Giles ASP said: ‘Solicitor and client privilege is one of the basic principles which permit the operation of our justice system and public confidence in it. In order to support the public interest in the inviolability of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.268765