Al Fayed & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 780 (29th May, 2002)

Al Fayed & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 780 (29th May, 2002)

It was not obvious to a reasonable solicitor in the position of the appellants’ solicitors that the Pownall opinions were disclosed by mistake; therefore, the appellants are entitled to retain and use the documents, and the injunction and order for their return should be discharged.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 780
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mohamed Al Fayed; Claimant/appellant: John Macnamara; Claimant/appellant: Mark Griffiths; Claimant/appellant: Paul Handley-Greaves; Claimant/appellant: Colin Dalman; Claimant/appellant: John Allen; Defendant/respondent: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Defendant/respondent: Niall Mulvihill; Defendant/respondent: Jeffrey Edward Rees; Defendant/respondent: James Reeve; Defendant/respondent: Richard Reynolds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Queen’s Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure of Documents, Mistaken Disclosure, Injunctions, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)
Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Immunity Disclosure of Documents Mistaken Disclosure Injunctions Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Al Fayed

Claimant/appellant

John Macnamara

Claimant/appellant

Mark Griffiths

Claimant/appellant

Paul Handley-Greaves

Claimant/appellant

Colin Dalman

Claimant/appellant

John Allen

Claimant/appellant

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Defendant/respondent

Niall Mulvihill

Defendant/respondent

Jeffrey Edward Rees

Defendant/respondent

James Reeve

Defendant/respondent

Richard Reynolds

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Queen’s Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents disclosed by mistake and subject to legal professional privilege or public interest immunity must be returned or may be used by the receiving party
  2. 2 Whether it was obvious to a reasonable solicitor that the documents were disclosed by mistake

Ratio Decidendi

It was not obvious to a reasonable solicitor in the position of the appellants’ solicitors that the Pownall opinions were disclosed by mistake; therefore, the appellants are entitled to retain and use the documents, and the injunction and order for their return should be discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Injunction and order for return of the Pownall opinions discharged
  • Refusal of permission to use the Pownall opinions under CPR 31.20 set aside