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

Litigation privilege does not extend to the identity of individuals authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client unless disclosure would reveal the content of privileged communications. The request for such information under CPR 18 was unnecessary and disproportionate, and should not have been ordered.

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
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, declaration and order for disclosure of identities set aside, order for unredacted engagement letter upheld.
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Legal Professional Privilege, Disclosure, Case Management, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Evidence Litigation Privilege Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure Case Management Limitation of Actions

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 15 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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identity of individuals authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client is covered by litigation privilege
  2. 2 Whether Loreley should be ordered to disclose such information under CPR 18
  3. 3 Whether the request for further information is reasonably necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Litigation privilege does not extend to the identity of individuals authorised to give instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client unless disclosure would reveal the content of privileged communications. The request for such information under CPR 18 was unnecessary and disproportionate, and should not have been ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, declaration and order for disclosure of identities set aside, order for unredacted engagement letter upheld.

Orders

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