MAC Hotels Ltd v Rider Levett Bucknall UK Ltd: TCC 26 Feb 2010

Application by the defendants for disclosure and inspection of files of documents, which the claimant in the action says are protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege.
Judge Havelock-Allen QC said: ‘ When it comes to proof of knowledge under section 14A , the assertion by a claimant that he was unaware of the material circumstances until a certain date, carries with it the assertion that he did not have the requisite knowledge at any time before that date. To that extent, the assertion involves proving a negative. MAC is here saying that it did not have the requisite knowledge any earlier than 6 December 2006: but it does not want to be compelled to establish that proposition by having to disclose details of its investigations into the defendants’ conduct only in order to establish that those investigations produced no credible leads which should have instigated a further enquiry leading to requisite knowledge about the Midas fraud and the other new non-fraud-derived claims against the defendants. However, sometimes, difficult and invidious choices have to be made if the evidence, without some waiver of privilege, risks being insufficient to enable the claimant to persuade the court that the running of limitation was postponed for as long as the claimant says.’


Judge Havelock-Allen QC


[2010] EWHC 767 (TCC)




Limitation Act 1980 14A


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.424983