Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd & Ors

Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd & Ors

Section 348 does not prohibit disclosure by a secondary recipient of transcripts of interviews with its own employees or former employees, insofar as the transcripts contain information already and independently known to the recipient, applying ordinary rules of attribution. Inspection should be permitted subject to redaction of information not previously known to the recipient. The difficulties and risks of redaction do not justify refusal of inspection under CPR 31.12 in this case.

Parties
Claimant: Real Estate Opportunities Limited; 1st Defendant: Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Limited; 2nd Defendant: Aberdeen Asset Managers Limited; 3rd Defendant: UBS Limited (formerly UBS Warburg Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Documents Under CPR 31.19(5)
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidential Information, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Redaction, Attribution of Knowledge to Companies
Civil Procedure Financial Regulation Disclosure of Documents Confidential Information Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Redaction Attribution of Knowledge to Companies

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Real Estate Opportunities Limited

Claimant

Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Limited

1st Defendant

Aberdeen Asset Managers Limited

2nd Defendant

UBS Limited (formerly UBS Warburg Limited)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Documents Under CPR 31.19(5)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 prohibits inspection of transcripts and documents supplied by the FSA to the defendants where the information was already known to the defendants or their employees
  2. 2 Whether the process of redaction required to permit inspection is so onerous as to justify refusal of inspection under CPR 31.12

Ratio Decidendi

Section 348 does not prohibit disclosure by a secondary recipient of transcripts of interviews with its own employees or former employees, insofar as the transcripts contain information already and independently known to the recipient, applying ordinary rules of attribution. Inspection should be permitted subject to redaction of information not previously known to the recipient. The difficulties and risks of redaction do not justify refusal of inspection under CPR 31.12 in this case.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Defendants to permit inspection of the documents in issue, subject to redaction in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment.
  • Prior notice to be given to individual interviewees to enable them to raise objections referable to their particular circumstances.