Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees S.A. & Ors v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1129 (31 July 2014)

Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees S.A. & Ors v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1129 (31 July 2014)

The appeal was allowed in relation to the documents claimed to be privileged (SFO-042290, SFO-038047, SFO-019016, SFO-032717) because the court found that it was not obvious to a reasonable solicitor that their disclosure was a mistake, and in one case, privilege was not established. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the document subject to public interest immunity (SFO-016237) because, where a valid and unchallenged PII certificate exists, the court must give effect to the public interest in confidentiality, and the applicant need not show an obvious mistake in disclosure.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1129
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees S.A.; Claimant/appellant: Vincent Tchenguiz and others; Defendant/respondent: Director of the Serious Fraud Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Immunity, Inadvertent Disclosure, Document Disclosure, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Evidence Public Law Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Immunity Inadvertent Disclosure Document Disclosure Civil Procedure Rules

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees S.A.

Claimant/appellant

Vincent Tchenguiz and others

Claimant/appellant

Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents disclosed by the SFO were subject to legal professional privilege or public interest immunity and, if so, whether their inadvertent disclosure precluded their use by the VT parties under CPR 31.20.
  2. 2 Whether the mistake in disclosure was 'obvious' such that the court should restrain use of the documents.
  3. 3 Whether the principles governing inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents also apply to documents subject to public interest immunity.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in relation to the documents claimed to be privileged (SFO-042290, SFO-038047, SFO-019016, SFO-032717) because the court found that it was not obvious to a reasonable solicitor that their disclosure was a mistake, and in one case, privilege was not established. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the document subject to public interest immunity (SFO-016237) because, where a valid and unchallenged PII certificate exists, the court must give effect to the public interest in confidentiality, and the applicant need not show an obvious mistake in disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Permission granted to use documents SFO-042290, SFO-038047, SFO-019016, SFO-032717 in the proceedings.
  • Permission refused to use document SFO-016237 in the proceedings.