Be careful what you reference: when witness evidence waives privilege
The extent to which a statement of case or witness statement makes reference to documents, thereby giving rise to a right to inspection by the opponent, is one that often arises in practice. The issue is particularly acute when the document in question is protected by legal professional privilege and the party would otherwise be entitled to withhold it from production. The recent decision of the High Court in Scipharm Sarl v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust adds to the jurisprudence in this area, providing guidance on what constitutes sufficient reference to a document to trigger the right to inspection and how the court may exercise its discretion to order disclosure of privileged material.
The claimant and the defendant entered into a pharmaceutical development agreement (“the agreement”). The claimant alleged that the defendant had breached the terms of the agreement by losing its good manufacturing practice status. This meant the defendant was unable to enter into a commercial manufacturing agreement with the claimant in relation to a particular pharmaceutical product. The claimant alleged that it had incurred significant losses as a result of the defendant’s breach.
One of the claimant’s witnesses, Mr Becker, had referred in his witness statement to a conversation between the claimant’s solicitor and Ms Beveridge, one of the defendant’s employees at the time who was involved in negotiations with the claimant concerning the development of the pharmaceutical product. The most significant statement appeared at paragraph 9 of the witness statement and read as follows:
“Moorfields [the defendant’s] solicitors wrote in their letter dated 5 March 2018 that SciPharm (the Claimant)… was not prepared to commit to non-refundable reservation and cancellation costs given the uncertainty in timing and success of obtaining market authorisation. Ms Beveridge confirmed to our solicitor that in reality Moorfields did not consider cancellation fees to be appropriate given the size of its manufacturing business. I do not know who gave this incorrect information to Moorfields solicitors in March 2018.”
The defendant submitted that there was specific allusion to attendance notes or similar documents arising from the claimant’s solicitors’ discussions with Ms Beveridge, and made an application under CPR 31.14 for disclosure and inspection of these documents. The defendant argued that it would be unfair to refuse disclosure as the information deployed in the witness statement was not consistent with a witness statement provided by Ms Beveridge some three years previously.
The questions for the court to determine were twofold:
- Had the defendant identified as a threshold issue that the relevant documents had been “mentioned” in the witness statement relied upon so as to engage CPR 31.14 and (subject to the court’s discretion) a right to inspect the documents (the “threshold issue”)?
- If there was sufficient mention of the documents, should the court use its discretion to order inspection where the documents in question were by their nature privileged? The question therefore came to this: if there had been a mention of the relevant documents, had there been an express or implied waiver of privilege sufficient to permit inspection to take place (the “waiver issue”).
The court granted the application for disclosure and inspection under CPR 31.14.
In relation to the threshold issue, the court held that whilst there was no evidence as to the basis on which the information relating to Ms Beveridge came to be included in the witness statement, in the absence of an express explanation the inference to be drawn was that it must have been by reference to an attendance note containing the relevant information. It was unreal to suppose that the information had come from Mr Becker’s memory.
As to the waiver issue, the court considered the judgment in Magnesium Elektron v Neo Chemicals and Oxides (Europe) Limited as to when and in what circumstances waiver could arise. Paragraph 43 of that judgment read as follows:
“The general rule is that:
‘Where a person is deploying in court material which would otherwise be privileged, the opposite party and the court must have the opportunity of satisfying themselves that what the party has chosen to release from privilege represents the whole of the material relevant to the issue in question. To allow an individual item to be plucked out of context would be to risk injustice through its real weight or meaning being misunderstood.
The key word here is “deploying”. A mere reference to a privileged document in an affidavit does not of itself amount to a waiver of privilege, and this is so even if the document referred to is being relied on for some purpose, for reliance in itself is said not to be the test. Instead, the test is whether the contents of the document are being relied on, rather than its effect. The problem is acute in cases where the maker of an affidavit or witness statement has to give details of the source of his information and belief, in order to comply with the rules of admissibility of such affidavit or witness statement. Provided that the maker does not quote the contents, or summarise them, but simply refers to the document’s effect, there is apparently no waiver of privilege …'”
On this basis, the court held that paragraph 9 of Mr Becker’s witness statement was plainly an attempt to rely upon the material referred to rather than referring in passing to the existence of the documents. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to allow Mr Becker to rely upon the assertions made in his witness statement when these were in conflict with the witness statement apparently signed by Ms Beveridge without disclosing the records of what Ms Beveridge in fact said.
The decision applies established legal principles, but is an important reminder of the rigour that practitioners must apply when it comes to preparing statements of case and witness evidence. As the court noted, the law takes privilege extremely seriously as a matter of policy. Practitioners would be well advised to adopt a similar approach and scrutinise any references to documents, whether direct or by specific allusion, so as not inadvertently to waive privilege. It should also be noted that, while the application in this case was made pursuant to CPR 31.14 and many cases will instead be subject to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme (DPS) in Practice Direction 51U, the DPS contains provisions to similar effect in paragraph 21.
This article was first published in Practical Law.
Anti-Money Laundering in Switzerland - Quick overview
Swiss anti-money laundering legislation has undergone numerous changes in recent years.
Insolvencies and rising prices: the energy retail market in flux
Hanh and Sara take a look at the energy market
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully advises the Joint Liquidators of LB GP No.1 Ltd in Lehman Brothers litigation before the Court of Appeal
LBGP is a company within the Lehman Brothers Group, whose purpose was to raise regulatory capital for parts of the Group.
Court of Appeal reviews key principles to consider when making a non-party costs order
Numbers on the boards - another burden for the hospitality industry
Caroline Greenwell quoted by Food Navigator on how organisations can avoid the greenwashing trap
New reviews on misleading claims in early 2022 will pressure companies to provide concrete evidence of their sustainability credentials.
John Doyle Construction in the Court of Appeal: enforcing adjudication is all a matter of (net) balance for companies in liquidation...
Global Restructuring Review feature the firm’s involvement advising the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited in the Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal
The Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal continues with guarantor question.
Thomas Catto and Sam Saunders write for The MENA Business Law Review on recent developments in dispute resolution in Bahrain
Thomas and Sam consider the latest changes in the Courts in Bahrain.
New Criminal Offences – Pensions Regulator’s Approach
Tom and Esther take a look at the Pensions Regulator's recently published guidance on their new powers
The importance of anticipating the restructuring of State Guaranteed Loans
Denis looks at the importance of anticipating the restructuring of State Guaranteed Loans
Certain about capacity? Expert evidence is no guarantee...
Supply chain going flat
Charles Russell Speechlys Hong Kong successfully defends equal opportunities action brought against Novartis
We have successfully defended NYSE-listed healthcare company Novartis against an equal opportunities action filed by a former employee.
Relocating between the UK and Switzerland? What to do about your pension
The pension team take a look at the key things you need to do about your pension when moving from the UK to Switzerland
Eyes on the road: automated vehicles are closer than we think
Sonia looks at automated vehicles, specifically, the automated lane keep system technology known as ALKS
Property Patter: the tactics of settlement offers
What impact can settlement offers have on costs?
A secret will, for the moment
Caroline Greenwell and Peter Carlyon write for New Law Journal on the issue of companies exaggerating their green credentials
The extent and impact of greenwashing by companies, the reputational damage where they’re caught out and potential regulatory action.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon, Georgina Munnik, Sam Saunders and Simone Sancandi produce the Chambers Global Practice Guide on the enforcement of judgments in Bahrain