C. I. Architects Ltd -v- Callaghan and Takilla Ltd [2016] JRC 178 (04 October 2016)

C. I. Architects Ltd -v- Callaghan and Takilla Ltd [2016] JRC 178 (04 October 2016)

The email of 24 February 2016 was privileged, sent in error, and the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on it. It was obvious to the receiving solicitor that a mistake had been made. The defendants are not required to list documents already in the plaintiff's possession, given the value and complexity of the claim, but should have listed them if relevant. Documents relating to the authority and relationship between the first and second defendants, including those held by the trust and RBC entities, for the period November 2013 to February 2015, are relevant and must be disclosed, as the authority of the first defendant is central to the dispute.

Citation
[2016] JRC 178
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Specific Discovery / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Privilege, Authority of Agents, Contractual Disputes
Civil Procedure Discovery Privilege Authority of Agents Contractual Disputes

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Specific Discovery / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff may use an inadvertently sent privileged email
  2. 2 Whether the defendants must produce documents listed by the plaintiff but not by themselves
  3. 3 Whether documents relating to the relationship and authority between the first and second defendants should be disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The email of 24 February 2016 was privileged, sent in error, and the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on it. It was obvious to the receiving solicitor that a mistake had been made. The defendants are not required to list documents already in the plaintiff's possession, given the value and complexity of the claim, but should have listed them if relevant. Documents relating to the authority and relationship between the first and second defendants, including those held by the trust and RBC entities, for the period November 2013 to February 2015, are relevant and must be disclosed, as the authority of the first defendant is central to the dispute.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Plaintiff is refused permission to use the email of 24 February 2016 at 12:40.
  • Defendants are not required to produce further lists of documents already in the plaintiff's possession.