LORELEY FINANCING (JERSEY) No 30 LIMITED v CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (EUROPE) LIMITED & Ors

LORELEY FINANCING (JERSEY) No 30 LIMITED v CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (EUROPE) LIMITED & Ors

The identity of persons authorised to give instructions to solicitors is privileged only if disclosure would undermine privilege or reveal confidential communications; in this case, Loreley has not established that privilege would be undermined by disclosure, so litigation privilege does not apply to the identity sought.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Limited; Defendant/applicant: Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited; Defendant/applicant: Credit Suisse International; Defendant/applicant: Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Defendant/applicant: Credit Suisse AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Privilege
Outcome
Application granted in part; Loreley not entitled to claim litigation privilege over the identity of persons authorised to instruct solicitors.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Legal Advice Privilege, Disclosure, Redactions
Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Litigation Privilege Legal Advice Privilege Disclosure Redactions

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Limited

Claimant/respondent

Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited

Defendant/applicant

Credit Suisse International

Defendant/applicant

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

Defendant/applicant

Credit Suisse AG

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the identity of persons authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client in ongoing litigation covered by litigation privilege?
  2. 2 Are redactions referring to the identity of such persons justified on grounds of privilege?

Ratio Decidendi

The identity of persons authorised to give instructions to solicitors is privileged only if disclosure would undermine privilege or reveal confidential communications; in this case, Loreley has not established that privilege would be undermined by disclosure, so litigation privilege does not apply to the identity sought.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; Loreley not entitled to claim litigation privilege over the identity of persons authorised to instruct solicitors.

Orders

  • Loreley must provide a full response to the relevant CPR Part 18 Request regarding the identity of individuals authorised to instruct RPC.
  • Loreley and RPC must review redactions in light of this decision, separating legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, and support any maintained redactions with specific evidence.