Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees SA & Ors v Akers & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 136 (20 February 2014)

Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees SA & Ors v Akers & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 136 (20 February 2014)

The Court held that the Joint Liquidators failed to establish that the dominant purpose for commissioning the five Grant Thornton reports was litigation, as opposed to general investigatory or administrative purposes required in the liquidation. The evidence was insufficiently specific and did not demonstrate that litigation was reasonably in prospect at the relevant times. Therefore, the reports were not protected by litigation privilege and must be disclosed.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 136
Parties
Respondents: Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & Ors; Appellants: Akers & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Third Party Disclosure, Dominant Purpose Test, Liquidation, Legal Professional Privilege
Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Evidence Litigation Privilege Third Party Disclosure Dominant Purpose Test Liquidation Legal Professional 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & Ors

Respondents

Akers & Anr

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the five Grant Thornton reports commissioned by the Joint Liquidators are protected by litigation privilege and thus exempt from third party disclosure under CPR 31.17.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Joint Liquidators failed to establish that the dominant purpose for commissioning the five Grant Thornton reports was litigation, as opposed to general investigatory or administrative purposes required in the liquidation. The evidence was insufficiently specific and did not demonstrate that litigation was reasonably in prospect at the relevant times. Therefore, the reports were not protected by litigation privilege and must be disclosed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The five Grant Thornton reports are not protected by litigation privilege and must be disclosed to the Respondents.