Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 730 (Comm) (04 March 2022)

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 730 (Comm) (04 March 2022)

References in the witness statements to retainers, contracts, or transactions did not amount to sufficient 'mention' of specific documents for the purposes of PD 51U para 21, as there was no direct allusion to the existence of written documents. Disclosure orders cannot be made for documents not in the witness's possession or not specifically mentioned. Privilege over retainer letters or CFAs depends on their content, not their form.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 730 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson and Partners Limited; First Defendant: John Forster Emmott; Second Defendant: Michael Robinson (deceased, represented by Mark Robinson); Fifth Defendant: Philip Shepherd QC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Under PD 51 U, Para 21
Outcome
Application for disclosure dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Practice Direction 51 U, Privilege, Costs Recovery, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure of Documents Practice Direction 51 U Privilege Costs Recovery 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson and Partners Limited

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

First Defendant

Michael Robinson (deceased, represented by Mark Robinson)

Second Defendant

Philip Shepherd QC

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Under PD 51 U, Para 21

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents have been 'mentioned' in witness statements for the purposes of PD 51U para 21
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of such documents is reasonable and proportionate under PD 51U para 6.4
  3. 3 Whether privilege attaches to retainer letters or conditional fee agreements

Ratio Decidendi

References in the witness statements to retainers, contracts, or transactions did not amount to sufficient 'mention' of specific documents for the purposes of PD 51U para 21, as there was no direct allusion to the existence of written documents. Disclosure orders cannot be made for documents not in the witness's possession or not specifically mentioned. Privilege over retainer letters or CFAs depends on their content, not their form.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure dismissed

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of documents sought by the claimant under PD 51U para 21
  • If privilege is asserted over redacted CFAs, a brief witness statement may be filed explaining the basis for privilege, without revealing privileged content