Sinclair Roche & Temperley (a firm) v Somatra

Sinclair Roche & Temperley (a firm) v Somatra

The court refused to order production because the application was made late, was in breach of a prior undertaking, and the court had no jurisdiction to order production except on terms to which the privilege holder (Arig) consented. Voluntary production by Arig was permissible, but the court would not compel it or rule on privilege waiver without argument.

Parties
Appellant: Sinclair Roche & Temperley (A Firm); Respondent: Somatra; Interested Party: ARIG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application During Appeal
Outcome
Application for production of documents refused
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Legal Professional Privilege, Undertakings to Court
Civil Procedure Production of Documents Legal Professional Privilege Undertakings to Court

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinclair Roche & Temperley (A Firm)

Appellant

Somatra

Respondent

ARIG

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application During Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order production of documents over which privilege is claimed during appeal
  2. 2 Whether previous undertakings to the court bar further applications for production

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order production because the application was made late, was in breach of a prior undertaking, and the court had no jurisdiction to order production except on terms to which the privilege holder (Arig) consented. Voluntary production by Arig was permissible, but the court would not compel it or rule on privilege waiver without argument.

Court Disposition

Application for production of documents refused

Orders

  • No order for production of documents
  • No ruling on privilege waiver