Lawrence Collins J reviewed the authorities, and held that, where a privileged document had been seen by an opposing party through fraud or mistake, the court has power to exercise its equitable confidentiality jurisdiction, and ‘should ordinarily intervene, unless the case is one where the injunction can properly be refused on the general principles affecting the grant of a discretionary remedy.’ On the facts, an injunction should be refused ‘on the ground of the public interest in the disclosure of wrongdoing and the proper administration of justice’.
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
[2003] EWHC 165 (Ch), [2003] 2 All ER 252, [2003] CP Rep 39
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tchenguiz 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.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.179326
