China National Petroleum Corporation & Ors v Fenwick Elliott Techint International Construction Company [2002] EWHC 60 (Ch) (31st January, 2002)

China National Petroleum Corporation & Ors v Fenwick Elliott Techint International Construction Company [2002] EWHC 60 (Ch) (31st January, 2002)

The claimants failed to establish that the information was confidential or privileged as between the parties, failed to show any impropriety in the defendants' conduct, and the communications with the potential witness were privileged. There was no waiver of privilege, and the claimants had no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the applications for relief and the action were dismissed.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 60 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: China National Petroleum Corporation and Others; First Defendant: Fenwick Elliott; Second Defendant: Techint International Construction Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission to serve out set aside; all applications by claimants refused.
Legal Topics
Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Litigation Privilege, Confidential Information, Disclosure Obligations, Arbitration Procedure, Waiver of Privilege
Civil Procedure Confidentiality Privilege Arbitration Norwich Pharmacal Orders Litigation Privilege Confidential Information Disclosure Obligations +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China National Petroleum Corporation and Others

Claimant

Fenwick Elliott

First Defendant

Techint International Construction Company

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are obliged to disclose the source of alleged confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the information in question is confidential or privileged
  3. 3 Whether privilege was waived by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish that the information was confidential or privileged as between the parties, failed to show any impropriety in the defendants' conduct, and the communications with the potential witness were privileged. There was no waiver of privilege, and the claimants had no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the applications for relief and the action were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission to serve out set aside; all applications by claimants refused.

Orders

  • Dismissal of the Consortium’s application for interlocutory relief
  • Dismissal of the Consortium’s action against Fenwick Elliott