The answer, after denying the title of the Plaintiffs, set forth a schedule of documents in the possession of the Defendants, which it admitted related to the matters mentioned in the bill ; but it denied that, by those documents, the truth of such matters would appear to be otherwise than as stated in the answer ; and it submitted that the Defendants ought not to be ordered to produce the documents, and, in addition, that certain of the letters mentioned in the schedule ought not to be produced in this or any other suit, inasmuch as they were written either pending or in contemplation of the litigation in this suit, and with reference to the matters in this suit brought into controversy, and were written to one of the Defendants from his solicitor, or from an attorney who had been employed by him in a suit instituted by him in the Lord Mayor’s Court, to which the bill related, to the solicitors of that Defendant, or from one of the Defendants to another of them for the purpose of being communicated to the solicitor of the latter with a view to his defence in this litigation. Held, that such of the first class of letters as were written to the Defendants by their solicitors, in that character merely, were privileged, but that all the other documents and letters ought to be produced..
Citations:
[1851] EngR 102, (1850-1851) 1 Sim NS 155, (1851) 61 ER 60
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.296418