Imerman v Tchenguiz and Others: QBD 16 Nov 2009

The claimant sought an ‘unless order’, saying that the defendant had failed to comply with orders for delivery up of documents. Though the order had been agreed, the defendants said that the documents might be needed for an appeal. The claimants said that the defendants had misunderstood the basis of a legal professional privilege claim.
Held: The annotation by the defendants of documents should be dealt with by redaction, and did not lead to the document itself acquiring privilege. The court gave directions accordingly for the different classes of documents.

Eady J
[2009] EWHC 2902 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLyell v Kennedy (No 3) CA 8-Apr-1884
The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to land as purchaser from the heir-at-law of an intestate, who had died many years earlier. The land was in the possession of the defendant, and the central issue in the action was whether the defendant’s . .
CitedSumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited CA 20-Jul-2001
Documents had been translated from the Japanese, for the purposes of the litigation. The claimant refused disclosure, arguing that they were privileged, and protected from disclosure, having been prepared for the court proceedings.
Held: The . .
See AlsoImerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 27-Jul-2009
It was said that the defendant had taken private and confidential material from the claimant’s computer. The claimant sought summary judgement for the return of materials and destruction of copies. The defendant denied that summary judgement was . .

Cited by:
See AlsoImerman v Tchenguiz CA 27-Jan-2010
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
See AlsoTchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.379560