Shepherd v Fox Williams LLP & Ors

Shepherd v Fox Williams LLP & Ors

There was no evidence that the claimant or his solicitors sent the privileged documents to Ms Liebling’s work email address or otherwise waived privilege. The documents were sent to her personal email, and forwarding by Ms Liebling to her work address did not constitute waiver. The claimant maintained confidentiality and privilege, and is entitled to delivery up and costs.

Parties
Claimant: Shepherd; Defendants: Fox Williams LLP & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application and Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; entitled to costs.
Legal Topics
Waiver of Privilege, Delivery Up of Documents, Costs, Confidential Information, Employment Tribunal Disclosure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shepherd

Claimant

Fox Williams LLP & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application and Costs Determination

  1. 1 Whether the claimant waived privilege in the disputed documents by sending them to Ms Liebling
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to delivery up and/or destruction of the privileged documents
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the claimant or his solicitors sent the privileged documents to Ms Liebling’s work email address or otherwise waived privilege. The documents were sent to her personal email, and forwarding by Ms Liebling to her work address did not constitute waiver. The claimant maintained confidentiality and privilege, and is entitled to delivery up and costs.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; entitled to costs.

Orders

  • Defendants to swear affidavits confirming and explaining delivery up and/or destruction of privileged documents.
  • Defendants to clarify what electronic copies have not been deleted, reasons for retention, and provide undertakings restricting use.