Henderson and Jones Limited v David Jason Ross & Ors.

Henderson and Jones Limited v David Jason Ross & Ors.

Privilege in Eversheds’ legal advice was not waived by Mr Sweeney’s witness statement, as references were either factual or responsive to the Claimant’s own assertions and did not amount to deployment of privileged material. The application for further information was rejected as it would require disclosure of privileged content, was unnecessary, disproportionate, and imprecise.

Parties
Claimant: Henderson & Jones Limited; Defendant: David Jason Ross; Defendant: Stephen Roger Barnes; Defendant: Gerard Hugh Barnes; Defendant: Leila Jayne Fellows Saunders; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: The Wilkes Partnership LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Disclosure, Further Information Requests, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Transactions at Undervalue, Unlawful Distributions
Civil Procedure Company Law Banking Law Legal Professional Privilege Waiver of Privilege Disclosure Further Information Requests Dishonest Assistance +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henderson & Jones Limited

Claimant

David Jason Ross

Defendant

Stephen Roger Barnes

Defendant

Gerard Hugh Barnes

Defendant

Leila Jayne Fellows Saunders

Defendant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

The Wilkes Partnership LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Barclays waived privilege in Eversheds' legal advice by references in Mr Sweeney's witness statement
  2. 2 Whether Barclays should be ordered to provide further information in response to Request 7 of the Claimant’s Request for Further Information

Ratio Decidendi

Privilege in Eversheds’ legal advice was not waived by Mr Sweeney’s witness statement, as references were either factual or responsive to the Claimant’s own assertions and did not amount to deployment of privileged material. The application for further information was rejected as it would require disclosure of privileged content, was unnecessary, disproportionate, and imprecise.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant’s application for disclosure of privileged documents refused
  • Claimant’s application for further information under CPR Part 18 refused