Love v Fawcett & Anor

Love v Fawcett & Anor

There was no joint retainer between Mr Love and Northam for Mr Barry's services; however, Mr Love had a joint interest with Northam in communications relating to the letting and sale of the development, but not in communications regarding the financial relationship between Mr Love and Northam. Privilege applies to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Gary Love; Defendant: Robert Fawcett; Defendant: Northam Worldwide
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Joint Interest Privilege, Without Prejudice Communications, Waiver of Privilege
Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Joint Interest Privilege Without Prejudice Communications Waiver of Privilege

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Love

Claimant

Robert Fawcett

Defendant

Northam Worldwide

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether communications between Mr Barry and the defendants are subject to legal professional privilege as against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether there was a joint retainer or joint interest between Mr Love and Northam in instructing Mr Barry
  3. 3 Whether privilege has been waived by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

There was no joint retainer between Mr Love and Northam for Mr Barry's services; however, Mr Love had a joint interest with Northam in communications relating to the letting and sale of the development, but not in communications regarding the financial relationship between Mr Love and Northam. Privilege applies to the latter but not the former. Privilege has been waived for documents disclosed in the defendants' lists, but the extent of further waiver is to be determined at trial. The negotiations in question were not without prejudice, and any privilege was in any event waived by the parties' conduct. Mr Barry is not debarred from giving evidence, but his statement must be revised to...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Claimant to withdraw Mr Barry's original witness statement from trial documents
  • Claimant permitted to serve a revised statement from Mr Barry excluding privileged material by 30 June 2011, 12 noon