Aqua Global Solutions Ltd v Fiserv (Europe) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1627 (Ch) (05 July 2016)

Aqua Global Solutions Ltd v Fiserv (Europe) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1627 (Ch) (05 July 2016)

Where a single document is directly referred to in the Defence and is relevant to issues in the claim, the Claimant is entitled to inspection of the entire document unless the Defendant can show good grounds for limiting inspection. Confidentiality concerns can be addressed by a confidentiality ring and undertakings, but redaction is not appropriate where the document's meaning depends on its entirety.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1627 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Aqua Global Solutions Limited; Defendant: Fiserv (Europe) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Disclosure Application in Ongoing Copyright/commercial Contract Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Document (cpr 31.14/31.15/31.12)
Outcome
Claimant's application for inspection of the unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement granted, subject to confidentiality ring; Defendant's application for further confidentiality protections granted in part.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality Rings, Copyright Infringement, Interpretation of Commercial Agreements
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Intellectual Property Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality Rings Copyright Infringement Interpretation of Commercial Agreements

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aqua Global Solutions Limited

Claimant

Fiserv (Europe) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Disclosure Application in Ongoing Copyright/commercial Contract Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Document (cpr 31.14/31.15/31.12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to inspection of the unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement under CPR 31.14
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality or irrelevance justifies redaction or withholding of the document
  3. 3 Whether the prior consent order compromised the Claimant's application for disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Where a single document is directly referred to in the Defence and is relevant to issues in the claim, the Claimant is entitled to inspection of the entire document unless the Defendant can show good grounds for limiting inspection. Confidentiality concerns can be addressed by a confidentiality ring and undertakings, but redaction is not appropriate where the document's meaning depends on its entirety.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for inspection of the unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement granted, subject to confidentiality ring; Defendant's application for further confidentiality protections granted in part.

Orders

  • Defendant to disclose the entire unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement to the Claimant's legal advisers and specified individuals within a confidentiality ring, subject to undertakings and restrictions on use.
  • Order under CPR 31.22(2) preventing non-party access to the document without court order.