Linda May Green v CT Group Holdings Limited
[2023] EWHC 3168 (Comm)
Filatona Trading Limited & Anor v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP
14 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2573 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies fought in court. One company used a possibly fake report to win a previous case. The other company wants to know who made the fake report to stop it from happening again. The judge said the lawyers involved should give up information to help catch the person who made the fake report.
Key Facts
- •Filatona Trading Limited and Oleg Deripaska (Claimants) sought Norwich Pharmacal relief against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP (Defendant, 'QE'), a law firm.
- •The dispute stemmed from a joint venture breakdown involving a Russian textiles manufacturer, OJSC Trekhgornaya Manufaktura ('TGM').
- •QE acted for the Chernukhin Parties in section 68 proceedings, using a Russian language report (the Glavstroy Report) obtained from a Business Intelligence Consultancy.
- •The Deripaska Parties alleged the Glavstroy Report was a forgery used to manipulate a buyout award.
- •QE voluntarily disclosed engaging the Consultancy but claimed litigation privilege protected the Consultancy's identity.
- •The Deripaska Parties argued the Glavstroy Report's evidence of forgery was strong, leading to the withdrawal of the section 68 proceedings with indemnity costs awarded to them.
Legal Principles
Norwich Pharmacal relief requirements: (i) good arguable case of legally recognised wrong; (ii) respondent mixed up in facilitating wrongdoing; (iii) respondent able to provide necessary information; (iv) disclosure proportionate and appropriate.
Collier v Bennett [2020] 4 WLR 116 at [35]; Stanford Asset Holdings Ltd v AfrAsia Bank Ltd [2023] UKPC 35 at [36]
Litigation privilege attaches to communications, not facts or information. Disclosure of identity is only privileged if it inhibits candid discussion between lawyer and client.
Three Rivers (No 6) [2005] 1 AC 610; Loreley Financial v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2023] 1 WLR 1425
In malicious falsehood claims, financial loss is presumed, and nominal damages are awarded if no loss is proven.
Section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952; George v Cannell [2024] UKSC 19
Outcomes
Norwich Pharmacal relief granted.
The court found a strong arguable case of forgery and wrongdoing, QE's involvement in facilitating the use of the report, and the necessity of disclosure to identify the wrongdoer. Litigation privilege did not apply to the Consultancy's identity.
Similar Cases
Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v Konstantin Kuzovkov & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2527 (Comm)
Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor (Ruling on interview notes)
[2024] EWHC 953 (TCC)
Tariq Hamoodi v Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd
[2024] EWHC 1314 (Comm)
Global Processing Services (UK) Limited v Vladimir Yanpolsky & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 425 (KB)