Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors [2016] EWHC 2119 (Ch) (27 July 2016)

Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors [2016] EWHC 2119 (Ch) (27 July 2016)

The court held that the communications in question did not meet the high threshold of 'unambiguous impropriety' required to displace without prejudice privilege. The evidence of threats or blackmail was ambiguous, the role and authority of Mr Browne as agent for the claimants was not established, and the context did not support a finding of clear abuse of the privileged occasion. The application for admissibility was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2119 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Alan Holyoake; Claimant/respondent: Hotblack Holdings Limited; Defendant/applicant: Nicholas Anthony Candy; Defendant/applicant: Christian Peter Candy; Defendant/applicant: Richard Steven Williams; Defendant/applicant: Steven Miles Smith; Defendant/applicant: Timothy James Dean; Defendant/applicant: CPC Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation (interim Application) / Interim Application for Admissibility of Evidence (without Prejudice Privilege Exception)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Unambiguous Impropriety Exception, Admissibility of Evidence, Blackmail and Threats in Settlement, Interim Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Evidence Without Prejudice Privilege Unambiguous Impropriety Exception Admissibility of Evidence Blackmail and Threats in Settlement Interim Applications

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Alan Holyoake

Claimant/respondent

Hotblack Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Nicholas Anthony Candy

Defendant/applicant

Christian Peter Candy

Defendant/applicant

Richard Steven Williams

Defendant/applicant

Steven Miles Smith

Defendant/applicant

Timothy James Dean

Defendant/applicant

CPC Group Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation (interim Application) / Interim Application for Admissibility of Evidence (without Prejudice Privilege Exception)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain communications are admissible in evidence under the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception to the without prejudice rule
  2. 2 Whether threats or blackmail were made during settlement negotiations so as to lose privilege
  3. 3 Whether an intermediary (Mr Browne) was acting as agent for the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the communications in question did not meet the high threshold of 'unambiguous impropriety' required to displace without prejudice privilege. The evidence of threats or blackmail was ambiguous, the role and authority of Mr Browne as agent for the claimants was not established, and the context did not support a finding of clear abuse of the privileged occasion. The application for admissibility was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Disputed materials remain privileged and inadmissible in evidence
  • Materials to be sealed or not open to inspection pending further order