Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

DISCLOSURE/FAMILY PROCEEDINGS: Re L v L [2007] EWHC 140 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : re-l-v-l-2007-ewhc-140-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 1, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85255

(Queen's Bench Division; Tugendhat J; 1 February 2007)

It was a matter for considerable concern that parties to litigation would conduct searches which lacked any of the safeguards built into a search order issued by the court, all the more so if they did so in circumstances in which they could not reasonably expect to obtain such an order from the court. Frequently in matrimonial disputes one party, suspecting that the other party was about to destroy documents or conceal relevant information, copied, seized or tried to access digital copies of documents rather than seeking court orders in relation to the documents. The other party's rights of privacy and confidentiality, but not of privilege, might, in such cases, be overridden by the competing public interest that any trial should be conducted on full evidence, provided the documents were relevant. However, there was a danger that self-help measures such as copying, would lead to rights being overridden when the documents were not in fact relevant. The wife was ordered to surrender the two copies she had had made of the hard drive of the husband's laptop, which had been placed with her solicitors, the husband having established a sufficiently arguable case that the hard drive contained confidential information, some of which was protected by legal professional privilege. The copies were to be held in the custody of the husband. The husband had a real prospect of establishing that the wife had acted unlawfully.

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