Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon (No 8): CA 27 Jul 1990

There had been a lengthy and contentious process of discovery. Certain documents with legal professional privilege had also been handed over inadvertently. The plaintiff sought their return and an order against them being used.
Held: The documents and all copies were to be returned. The defendant was seeking to take advantage of what was an obvious mistake. The court would not support them, but use its equitable jurisdiction.
References: [1991] 1 WLR 73, [1990] 3 All ER 762, Times 29-Aug-1990, (1990) 136 SJ 84
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Applied – Guinness Peat Properties Ltd v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership CA 1987
    Property developers (‘GPR’) were suing their architects (‘FRP’) in negligence. The claim against FRP was covered by a professional indemnity insurance policy. Once FRP was notified of GPR’s claim, FRP sent a ‘notification of claim’ to its insurer . .
    ([1987] 1 WLR 1027, [1987] CLY 3060)
  • Cited – Goddard v Nationwide Building Society CA 1986
    A solicitor had acted for both purchaser and lender in a purchase transaction. The purchaser later sought to recover from the defendant for a negligent valuation. The solicitor had however discussed the issue with the plaintiff before the purchase, . .
    ([1987] 1 QB 670, [1986] 3 WLR 734)
  • Cited – English and American Insurance Co Ltd and Others v Herbert Smith ChD 1987
    Where documents with the benefit of legal professional privilege come into the hands of the opposing side, the court should be ready to grant an injunction to prevent their misuse. . .
    ((1987) NLJ 148, Times 22-Jan-87, [1988] FSR 232)
  • See Also – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon CA 2-Jan-1989
    The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit and conspiracy. It sought a world-wide injunction.
    Held: A freezing order (Mareva injunction) can be made in respect of assets which were . .
    ([1990] Ch 48, [1989] 2 WLR 276, (1989) 133 SJ 83, [1989] 1 All ER 469, [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 122)
  • See Also – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon (Nos 3 and 4) CA 1990
    The plaintiff had obtained an asset freezing order against a defendant Panamanian Company, which now appealed saying that it was inappropriate to make such an order where the company had no assets in the jurisdiction.
    Held: The appeal failed. . .
    ([1990] Ch 65, Times 09-Nov-90, [1989] 2 WLR 412)
  • See Also – Derby and Co Ltd And Others v Weldon And Others (No 9) ChD 25-Jul-1990
    The court considered the application of rules relating to the discovery of documents to material held on computer: ‘the database of a computer, so far as it contained information capable of being retrieved and converted into readable form, and . .
    (, [1991] 1 WLR 652, [1991] 2 All ER 901)
  • See Also – Derby and Co v Weldon CA 2-Aug-1988
    The court has a power to make a pre-judgment worldwide asset freezing order (a mareva injunction) on satisfaction of the following conditions: 1. That the defendant can be protected against too many and oppressive actions, 2. That he can be . .
    (Times 02-Aug-88)
  • See Also – Derby v Weldon (No. 3) ChD 7-Nov-1988
    The plaintiff alleged conspiracy to defraud in a sum in excess of andpound;25m. During the application for a freezing order the stance of the defendant had been one of ‘taciturnity’ and non-disclosure. But on the last day of the hearing it was said . .
    (Unreported, 7 November 1988)
  • See Also – Derby and Co v Weldon (No2) CA 2-Jan-1989
    The plaintiff appealed against the refusal of a world-wide Mareva injunction.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘We live in a time of rapidly growing commercial and financial sophistication and it behoves the . .
    ([1989] 1 All ER 1002)
  • See Also – Derby and Co v Weldon (No 6) CA 3-Jan-1990
    The court considered its power to order transfer of assets from one jurisdiction (in this case Switzerland) to another in aid of a Mareva injunction.
    Held: An order that assets be delivered or transferred to a receiver was a usual one.
    ([1990] 1 WLR 1139, [1990] 3 All ER 263)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Mohamad Al Fayed v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 29-May-2002
    During an action, advice from counsel had been inadvertently disclosed to the claimants. The defendant sought to restrain use of the papers in the trial. It was accepted that the papers attracted legal professional privilege, but the police also . .
    (Gazette 01-Aug-02, , [2002] EWCA Civ 780, A2/2002/0758)
  • Cited – Brooker and Brooker v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 26-Oct-1998
    The plaintiffs claimed damages against the respondents for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. By mistake the defendants disclosed a letter from a senior officer supporting the allegation, despite which the Police Complaints Authority had denied . .
    ([1998] EWCA Civ 1619)
  • See Also – Derby and Co Ltd And Others v Weldon And Others (No 10) CA 1991
    A document had been disclosed by mistake.
    Held: The inspecting parties must have realised that the documents had been disclosed by mistake. Fairness on the opposite party is the basis for the courts to hold for a waiver of legal privilege.
    ([1991] 1 WLR 660, [1991] 2 All ER 908)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 26 November 2020; Ref: scu.180943