Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees SA & Ors v Akers & Anor

Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees SA & Ors v Akers & Anor

The Joint Liquidators failed to demonstrate that the five reports were commissioned for the dominant purpose of use in actual or reasonably anticipated litigation. The evidence was vague, failed to specify the contemplated litigation or defendants, and in some cases, the reports were produced as part of the liquidators' statutory duties rather than for litigation. The dominant purpose test for litigation privilege was not satisfied for any of the reports.

Parties
Respondents: Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & Ors; Appellants: Akers & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Third Party Disclosure and Litigation Privilege
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Third Party Disclosure, Liquidation, Legal Professional Privilege
Civil Procedure Insolvency Evidence Litigation Privilege Third Party Disclosure 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & Ors

Respondents

Akers & Anr

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Third Party Disclosure and Litigation Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the five 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 Joint Liquidators failed to demonstrate that the five reports were commissioned for the dominant purpose of use in actual or reasonably anticipated litigation. The evidence was vague, failed to specify the contemplated litigation or defendants, and in some cases, the reports were produced as part of the liquidators' statutory duties rather than for litigation. The dominant purpose test for litigation privilege was not satisfied for any of the reports.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The order for disclosure of the five reports stands.