Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1484 (10 November 2022)

Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1484 (10 November 2022)

Litigation privilege does not, as a general rule, extend to the identity of individuals authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client unless disclosure would tend to reveal privileged communications. The information sought by the Bank is not privileged, but the request under CPR 18 was unnecessary and disproportionate; Loreley should not have been ordered to provide it.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 1484
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Limited; Respondent/defendant: Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Credit Suisse International; Respondent/defendant: Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Respondent/defendant: Credit Suisse AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (commercial Court, Financial List) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; declaration and order to answer Request 17 set aside; order to disclose engagement letter with Redaction 6 removed upheld.
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Legal Professional Privilege, Disclosure, Case Management, Limitation Period, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unlawful Means Conspiracy
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Litigation Privilege Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure Case Management Limitation Period Fraudulent Misrepresentation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Limited

Appellant/claimant

Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Credit Suisse International

Respondent/defendant

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

Respondent/defendant

Credit Suisse AG

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (commercial Court, Financial List) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the identity of individuals authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client covered by litigation privilege?
  2. 2 Should Loreley be ordered to disclose this information under CPR 18?
  3. 3 Is the information sought reasonably necessary and proportionate for case preparation?

Ratio Decidendi

Litigation privilege does not, as a general rule, extend to the identity of individuals authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client unless disclosure would tend to reveal privileged communications. The information sought by the Bank is not privileged, but the request under CPR 18 was unnecessary and disproportionate; Loreley should not have been ordered to provide it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; declaration and order to answer Request 17 set aside; order to disclose engagement letter with Redaction 6 removed upheld.

Orders

  • Loreley's application to amend grounds of appeal granted.
  • Declaration that identities of individuals authorised to give instructions are not privileged set aside.