The Serendipity Centre Ltd v Tinson [2026] EWHC 349 (Ch) (20 February 2026)

The Serendipity Centre Ltd v Tinson [2026] EWHC 349 (Ch) (20 February 2026)

The claimant failed to comply with the disclosure order by withholding documents on grounds of relevance, contrary to the order's wording, and cannot assert privilege against the defendant as former sole director and controlling mind; the claimant must produce the remainder of the documents and seek further information from Womble Bond Dickinson regarding documents withheld as relating to other clients.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 349 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Serendipity Centre Limited; Defendant: Susan Tinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Application in Ongoing Civil Proceedings (disclosure Dispute) / Post Transfer, Pre Trial, Determination of Disclosure Compliance and Related Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application allowed in part; claimant's application for variation refused; defendant's application for extension of disclosure period refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Legal Professional Privilege, Directors' Rights, Solicitor Client File Ownership, Variation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Company Law Disclosure of Documents Legal Professional Privilege Directors' Rights Solicitor Client File Ownership Variation of Court Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serendipity Centre Limited

Claimant

Susan Tinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application in Ongoing Civil Proceedings (disclosure Dispute) / Post Transfer, Pre Trial, Determination of Disclosure Compliance and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant complied with the order for disclosure dated 15 August 2025
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could withhold documents on grounds of relevance or privilege
  3. 3 Whether privilege could be asserted against a former sole director and shareholder

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to comply with the disclosure order by withholding documents on grounds of relevance, contrary to the order's wording, and cannot assert privilege against the defendant as former sole director and controlling mind; the claimant must produce the remainder of the documents and seek further information from Womble Bond Dickinson regarding documents withheld as relating to other clients.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application allowed in part; claimant's application for variation refused; defendant's application for extension of disclosure period refused.

Orders

  • Claimant must produce for inspection the remainder of documents supplied by Womble Bond Dickinson, without withholding any on grounds of legal professional privilege.
  • Claimant must ask Womble Bond Dickinson for more details of documents withheld as relating to other clients and provide the answer to the defendant, who may restore her application if advised.