Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding BV

Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding BV

ICEH failed to establish that litigation was reasonably anticipated or that the dominant purpose of instructing Barclays or KPMG was for litigation at the relevant times; the evidence and contemporaneous documents indicated the work was investigatory or audit in nature, not for litigation.

Parties
Claimant: Starbev GP Ltd; Defendant: Interbrew Central European Holding BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application / Interlocutory Application Challenging Claim to Withhold Inspection of Documents on Grounds of Litigation Privilege
Outcome
Application allowed; claim to litigation privilege rejected
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Disclosure of Documents, Interpretation of Commercial Agreements
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Litigation Privilege Disclosure of Documents 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starbev GP Ltd

Claimant

Interbrew Central European Holding BV

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application / Interlocutory Application Challenging Claim to Withhold Inspection of Documents on Grounds of Litigation Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether litigation privilege attaches to documents relating to advice from Barclays in April 2012
  2. 2 Whether litigation privilege attaches to documents relating to KPMG's work after 20 July 2012

Ratio Decidendi

ICEH failed to establish that litigation was reasonably anticipated or that the dominant purpose of instructing Barclays or KPMG was for litigation at the relevant times; the evidence and contemporaneous documents indicated the work was investigatory or audit in nature, not for litigation.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; claim to litigation privilege rejected

Orders

  • Barclays advice and KPMG report, together with related documents up to the time of their production, to be disclosed
  • Parties to agree on the appropriate date for inception of litigation privilege if necessary; failing agreement, further ruling may be sought