Expandable Ltd. & Ors v Rubin

Expandable Ltd. & Ors v Rubin

Privilege attaches to the solicitor's letter and has not been waived; CPR 31.14 does not override the right to claim privilege, and the letter was not sufficiently mentioned in the witness statement to trigger inspection rights. The application for disclosure and inspection fails under both CPR 31.14 and CPR 31.12, and the court's supervisory jurisdiction does not require disclosure in this case.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Expandable Limited; Claimant/respondent: Prime Trust Corporation; Defendant/appellant: Mr Rubin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Registrar's Order Dismissing Application for Disclosure and Inspection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Legal Professional Privilege, Specific Disclosure, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Waiver of Privilege
Civil Procedure Insolvency Disclosure of Documents Legal Professional Privilege Specific Disclosure Supervisory Jurisdiction Waiver of Privilege

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Expandable Limited

Claimant/respondent

Prime Trust Corporation

Claimant/respondent

Mr Rubin

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Registrar's Order Dismissing Application for Disclosure and Inspection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 31.14 excludes the right to claim legal professional privilege for documents mentioned in a witness statement
  2. 2 Whether the letter from Mr Zaidi is a document 'mentioned' in Mr Rubin's witness statement for purposes of CPR 31.14
  3. 3 Whether privilege has been waived by reference to the letter in the witness statement

Ratio Decidendi

Privilege attaches to the solicitor's letter and has not been waived; CPR 31.14 does not override the right to claim privilege, and the letter was not sufficiently mentioned in the witness statement to trigger inspection rights. The application for disclosure and inspection fails under both CPR 31.14 and CPR 31.12, and the court's supervisory jurisdiction does not require disclosure in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted under CPR 52.3(6)(b)
  • Appeal dismissed