The Serendipity Centre Limited v Susan Tinson

The Serendipity Centre Limited v Susan Tinson

The claimant failed to comply with the disclosure order by withholding documents on grounds of relevance and privilege, as the order required disclosure of the full file relating even in part to the loan agreement, and privilege could not be asserted against the defendant as former sole director who was aware of the contents. The claimant was not obliged to obtain documents from the solicitors that were not the client's property, except for clarification regarding documents relating to other clients.

Parties
Claimant: The Serendipity Centre Limited; Defendant: Susan Tinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (disclosure/company Law) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Defendant's application allowed in part; claimant's application for variation and defendant's application for extension refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Legal Professional Privilege, Company Director Rights, Solicitor Client File Ownership
Civil Procedure Company Law Disclosure of Documents Legal Professional Privilege Company Director Rights Solicitor Client File Ownership

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serendipity Centre Limited

Claimant

Susan Tinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (disclosure/company Law) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant complied with a specific disclosure order by withholding documents on grounds of relevance and privilege
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could assert privilege against its former sole director for documents she had previously seen
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was obliged to obtain and disclose the entire solicitor's file, including documents withheld by the solicitors as their property

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to comply with the disclosure order by withholding documents on grounds of relevance and privilege, as the order required disclosure of the full file relating even in part to the loan agreement, and privilege could not be asserted against the defendant as former sole director who was aware of the contents. The claimant was not obliged to obtain documents from the solicitors that were not the client's property, except for clarification regarding documents relating to other clients.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application allowed in part; claimant's application for variation and defendant's application for extension refused.

Orders

  • Claimant must produce for inspection by the defendant the remainder of the 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.