Spectratek Industries Inc. et al v. Dyke & Howard et al

Spectratek Industries Inc. et al v. Dyke & Howard et al

The court found the prior Deloitte engagement was sufficiently related to the current retainer and that there was insufficient evidence that timely and adequate screening measures had been implemented to eliminate the risk or appearance of disclosure of former client confidences; therefore the defendants'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 BCSC 1053
Parties
Plaintiffs: Spectratek Industries Inc.; Peter Belding; Susan Belding; Defendants: Dyke & Howard; D & H Group
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract / Application to Disqualify Opposing Expert and for Access to Former Client Documents
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed; Deloitte and Mr. Harder are not permitted to act as experts for the defendants in respect of access to the plaintiffs' documents
Legal Topics
Expert Witness Disqualification, Confidentiality of Former Client Information, Screening Measures, Business Valuation
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Professional Responsibility Evidence Conflict of Interest Expert Witness Disqualification Confidentiality of Former Client Information Screening Measures Business Valuation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spectratek Industries Inc.; Peter Belding; Susan Belding

Plaintiffs

Dyke & Howard; D & H Group

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract / Application to Disqualify Opposing Expert and for Access to Former Client Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Deloitte and its expert can act against a former client given prior accounting engagement
  2. 2 Whether confidential information might be disclosed to defendants through Deloitte
  3. 3 Whether screening measures and undertakings were timely and sufficient to prevent disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prior Deloitte engagement was sufficiently related to the current retainer and that there was insufficient evidence that timely and adequate screening measures had been implemented to eliminate the risk or appearance of disclosure of former client confidences; therefore the defendants' application to allow Deloitte and Mr. Harder access to plaintiffs' documents and to act as experts was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed; Deloitte and Mr. Harder are not permitted to act as experts for the defendants in respect of access to the plaintiffs' documents

Orders

  • Application of the defendants is dismissed
  • Costs in the cause