It was suggested that the use of documents revealed under court disclosure for a further purpose was a contempt of court, and that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: For iniquity to be established ‘there has to be strong evidence of fraud’.
Judges:
Peter Smith J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 186 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Dadourian Group International Inc and Others v Simms and Others CA 13-May-2004
Application for leave to appeal against worldwide asset freezing order. . .
Cited by:
Cited – X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure) EAT 9-Aug-2018
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264132