Victorygame Ltd & Anor v Ahuja Investments Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 993 (05 July 2021)

Victorygame Ltd & Anor v Ahuja Investments Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 993 (05 July 2021)

Litigation privilege applies to the correspondence as the dominant purpose was objectively assessed to be for use in the underlying litigation. Privilege is not lost merely because information was sought by means of a letter before claim or due to alleged deception, unless waiver or estoppel is established, which was not the case here. The service of a further witness statement did not constitute waiver of privilege.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 993
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Victorygame Limited; Appellant/defendant: Surjit Singh Pandher; Respondent/claimant: Ahuja Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Legal Professional Privilege, Disclosure, Waiver of Privilege, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Evidence Litigation Privilege Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure Waiver of Privilege Estoppel

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victorygame Limited

Appellant/defendant

Surjit Singh Pandher

Appellant/defendant

Ahuja Investments Limited

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether litigation privilege applies to correspondence obtained from a third party under circumstances involving alleged deception
  2. 2 Whether privilege can be lost due to misleading conduct or public interest
  3. 3 Whether service of a witness statement constitutes waiver of privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Litigation privilege applies to the correspondence as the dominant purpose was objectively assessed to be for use in the underlying litigation. Privilege is not lost merely because information was sought by means of a letter before claim or due to alleged deception, unless waiver or estoppel is established, which was not the case here. The service of a further witness statement did not constitute waiver of privilege.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Privilege upheld over correspondence between Ahuja and Stradbrooks
  • No waiver of privilege by service of witness statement