Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP & Ors [2020] EWHC 1002 (Comm) (30 March 2020)

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP & Ors [2020] EWHC 1002 (Comm) (30 March 2020)

The Claimant's disclosure searches, including the use of connectors, were reasonable and proportionate except in three specified instances where further searches were ordered. There was no evidence of systematic error in the Claimant's approach to privilege and redactions, and it would not be reasonable or proportionate to require further particularisation of redactions. The requirements of PD 51U, including paragraph 16.2, do not mandate further steps in this case given the context and prior conduct of disclosure.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1002 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited; First Defendant: Dechert LLP; Second Defendant: Mr. David Neil Gerrard; Third Party: The Director of the Serious Fraud Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Application for further disclosure and particularisation of redactions largely dismissed, with limited orders for additional searches in three instances.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Privilege, Case Management, Legal Professional Privilege, Proportionality in Disclosure
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Disclosure Privilege Case Management Legal Professional Privilege Proportionality in Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited

Claimant

Dechert LLP

First Defendant

Mr. David Neil Gerrard

Second Defendant

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's disclosure searches were reasonable and proportionate under Model D disclosure and PD 51U
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's approach to redaction and privilege complied with PD 51U, paragraph 16.2
  3. 3 Whether further orders for disclosure or particularisation of redactions should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's disclosure searches, including the use of connectors, were reasonable and proportionate except in three specified instances where further searches were ordered. There was no evidence of systematic error in the Claimant's approach to privilege and redactions, and it would not be reasonable or proportionate to require further particularisation of redactions. The requirements of PD 51U, including paragraph 16.2, do not mandate further steps in this case given the context and prior conduct of disclosure.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure and particularisation of redactions largely dismissed, with limited orders for additional searches in three instances.

Orders

  • ENRC to apply the search terms 'Protector Services', 'PSG', and 'Shawn McCormick' without Board Terms connectors.
  • ENRC to apply the search terms 'falsify', 'falsification', and 'forge' on a stand-alone basis (excluding documents sent to or from Tess Forge).