Defendant loses bid to throw claimants’ solicitors off case over privilege “breach”


High Court: wholly disproportionate to restrain solicitors from acting

A defendant in a high-profile group action has failed in his bid to have the claimants’ solicitors thrown off the case for having sight of privileged documents.

Bjorn Stiedl is one of the defendants in the multi-million-pound InnovatorOne case, in which 555 claimants – backed by third-party litigation funding – are suing over money they allegedly lost from investments.

Lawyers at Addleshaw Goddard, some of whom moved last year to form Enyo Law, taking the case with them, were provided with the contents of the InnovatorOne server and Mr Stiedl claimed that these included confidential and/or privileged documents that were personal to him.

All of the 180,000 documents on the server were subjected to a ‘tier 1’ review that aimed to eliminate obviously irrelevant material without a substantive read. Further correspondence then prompted Addleshaws to place 3,160 disputed documents in an electronic ring-fence, after which an independent review established that 25 of them were both prima facie privileged and relevant.

However, Mr Justice Beatson decided that “no substantive information” would have been gleaned under the tier 1 review. “No-one who is now at Enyo and who was a member of the team conducting the tier 1 review could remember the content of any specific document given that they looked at many tens of thousands of documents,” he said.

The law required there to be a “real risk” – meaning “more than a fanciful or theoretical risk” – that the information could be used so as to yield an advantage to the claimants in the main proceedings or a disadvantage to Mr Stiedl.

In any case, the judge then found that only one of the documents posed the possibility of real prejudice to Mr Stiedl’s defence if it turned out that an Enyo lawyer did recall its contents. “To restrain Enyo from continuing to act on the basis of this single document would, in my judgment, be wholly disproportionate,” he said.

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

10 December 2019

Is your website lost in the desert?

Having a website is like advertising on a billboard in the middle of the desert – it’s pretty useless unless people are driving past to see it. It’s exactly the same with cyberspace.

Read More

Loading animation