E.S. -v- B.S. [2010] IEHC 545 (23 April 2010)

E.S. -v- B.S. [2010] IEHC 545 (23 April 2010)

Legal professional privilege and implied undertaking do not prohibit disclosure of the affidavit and memoranda to the bank, as the conveyancing solicitors acted jointly for respondent and bank, and full disclosure is required in family law proceedings involving execution and variation of divorce decrees.

Citation
[2010] IEHC 545
Parties
Applicant: E. S.; Respondent: B. S.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Divorce Proceedings / Post Decree Enforcement and Variation Motion
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Divorce Decree Enforcement, Legal Professional Privilege, Disclosure of Documents, Mortgage Set Aside, Implied Undertaking
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Divorce Decree Enforcement Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure of Documents Mortgage Set Aside Implied Undertaking

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. S.

Applicant

B. S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Proceedings / Post Decree Enforcement and Variation Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether legal professional privilege and implied undertaking prohibit disclosure of affidavit and internal memoranda to the bank
  2. 2 Whether respondent misled applicant and court regarding mortgage status prior to divorce decree
  3. 3 Whether respondent can rely on privilege to hinder execution of divorce decree

Ratio Decidendi

Legal professional privilege and implied undertaking do not prohibit disclosure of the affidavit and memoranda to the bank, as the conveyancing solicitors acted jointly for respondent and bank, and full disclosure is required in family law proceedings involving execution and variation of divorce decrees.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's application to prohibit disclosure is dismissed