Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:21 PM
Slug : imerman-v-tchenguiz-2009-ewhc-2902-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 16, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85989

(Queen's Bench Division; Eady J; 16 November 2009)

Within a few weeks of the wife issuing a divorce petition the husband was evicted from business premises owned by one of his brothers-in-law. It emerged that the brother-in-law had also taken from the husband's password protected computer system vast amounts of material stored in the form of e-mails or attachments. The brother-in-law's case was that he had been looking for 'documents of relevance to likely issues in the divorce proceedings'. The husband obtained injunctions preventing further communication or disclosure of the relevant documents to any third party, including the wife and her solicitors, and preventing the brothers-in-law from copying or in any other way using a range of information. Following the judgment a consent order was made for all the documents to be returned by a certain date. None were handed over. The brothers-in-law claimed that no hard copies were in their possession. The solicitor to the brothers-in-law claimed that hard copies held by his firm were covered by legal professional privilege.

The underlining or highlighting of documents would not, in themselves, give rise to legal professional privilege. Also, the mere fact that some pages had been annotated did not give a clue as to the advice being offered, by giving rise to an inference that pages that had not been annotated were considered insignificant. Copies of confidential schedules should be returned; they had not been dealt with in open court, and had been marked 'confidential' to prevent general access. Revealing their contents to extraneous persons could well be a contempt of court. Solicitors' correspondence would not generally fall within legal professional privilege and should therefore be delivered up in so far as it fell within the order. The prospective appeal to the Court of Appeal did not justify retention of the documents by the lawyers.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from