MICHAEL WILSON AND PARTNERS LIMITED v JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT AND OTHERS

MICHAEL WILSON AND PARTNERS LIMITED v JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT AND OTHERS

The court held that the references in the witness statements did not amount to sufficient 'mention' of specific documents to trigger disclosure under paragraph 21 of Practice Direction 51U. General references to retainers, agreements, or transactions are not direct allusions to written documents. Disclosure was also refused where documents were not in the possession of the witness or where disclosure would be unreasonable or disproportionate. Privilege over certain redacted portions of CFAs was upheld, subject to a possible further witness statement justifying the redactions without revealing privileged content.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson and Partners Limited; First Defendant: John Forster Emmott; Second Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Under Practice Direction 51 U, Paragraph 21
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Practice Direction 51 U, Privilege, Costs Orders, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure of Documents Practice Direction 51 U Privilege Costs Orders Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson and Partners Limited

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Under Practice Direction 51 U, Paragraph 21

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents referred to in witness statements are sufficiently 'mentioned' to warrant disclosure under paragraph 21 of Practice Direction 51U
  2. 2 Whether disclosure sought is reasonable and proportionate under paragraph 6.4 of Practice Direction 51U
  3. 3 Whether privilege attaches to retainer letters and conditional fee agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the references in the witness statements did not amount to sufficient 'mention' of specific documents to trigger disclosure under paragraph 21 of Practice Direction 51U. General references to retainers, agreements, or transactions are not direct allusions to written documents. Disclosure was also refused where documents were not in the possession of the witness or where disclosure would be unreasonable or disproportionate. Privilege over certain redacted portions of CFAs was upheld, subject to a possible further witness statement justifying the redactions without revealing privileged content.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of documents under paragraph 21 of Practice Direction 51U
  • If further justification for privilege is required, a brief witness statement may be filed explaining the basis for redactions without revealing privileged content