Latest updates
- The wife was seeking to enforce a financial order made in her favour. It had been the largest financial order ever made in favour of a wife in the jurisdiction and the husband had not paid a penny of it. She now made this application in respect of documents which had been obtained from a former employee of the husband, who was now assisting in her litigation enforcement efforts. An application for directions pursuant to UL v BK should have been made when the documents were received, but was not. Given that this was a case involving fraud and evasion on the husband's part, Knowles J directed that the wife and her lawyers were entitled to retain and use certain of the documents as if they had been disclosed by the husband, including those that were potentially privileged. Knowles J also gave guidance as to what should be done in similar situations in future. Judgment, 27/11/2019, free
- Wife's application within financial remedy proceedings for a whistle-blower's statement to be admitted as evidence was refused. The new material fell well short of being capable of establishing fraud or iniquity that would justify overriding or ignoring the legal professional privilege which otherwise would attach to all that the whistle-blower's statement describes. Judgment, 28/02/2019, free
- Judgment concerning whether documents leaked to a judge by a possible whistleblower working for a firm in financial remedy proceedings are protected by legal professional privilege. Holman J directed that the matter be listed before The President for determination. Judgment, 27/06/2018, free
- Appeal by a solicitor against an order requiring him to give evidence in big money financial remedy proceedings on the grounds that he was protected by legal professional privilege. Appeal dismissed largely because the evidence sought was not about client advice but third party dealings and therefore not privileged. Judgment, 27/02/2018, free
- The husband was applying for an order that the wife's solicitor, Raymond Tooth, be debarred from acting for her in these proceedings. The application arose out of the fact that following initial contact between the wife's and the husband's solicitors, the husband raised the point that Mr Tooth was one of six solicitors his representative had consulted in November 2015 with a view to, he says, choosing which firm would be a good fit for him were family litigation to occur in London. When that litigation was in prospect, in February 2017, and it transpired that the wife had instructed Sears Tooth, he objected on the basis that Mr Tooth was privy to confidential and privileged information which was such as to conflict him from acting for the wife. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 20/11/2017, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: Whistleblower deliberately sends privileged documents to the court. What next? Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Solicitor ordered to attend court to give evidence regarding location of client's assets Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Beauty parade does not debar solicitor from acting where no confidential material disclosed Case note, 19/01/2018, members only
- In a tweet: A 50:50 split in a big money sees W take over £350million Case note, 12/06/2017, members only
- In a tweet: Order requiring solicitor contacted by absentee mother to attend court for consideration of disclosure of information about mother's whereabouts Case note, 21/09/2016, members only
Latest training
- Webinar recorded on 3 October 2017 Webcast, 06/10/2017, members only