Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned an application for Norwich Pharmacal relief against a law firm where the granting of the relief would require the firm to disclose the identity of a London based Business Intelligence Consultancy (Consultancy) which had obtained a Russian language report (Glavstroy Report) which was alleged to be a forgery. The decision provides insights into such applications against law firms and the limitations of litigation privilege in such circumstances. Written by Natalie Todd, partner, and Sam Macintosh, associate at Cooke, Young and Keidan.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
¶Ù¾±²õ³¦±ô´Ç²õ³Ü°ù±ðâ€À¹±ð»å²¹³¦³Ù¾±´Ç²ÔThis Practice Note looks at the redaction of information in disclosure in civil proceedings. It considers the reasons for redacting documents, such as to maintain confidentiality/privilege and avoid irrelevance, the information that can be redacted, the courts’ approach to
Witness summonsThis Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, additional provisions may apply—see further in the section: Court specific guidance.Where a party to proceedings
When an extension of time to file a witness statement has been agreed, can the other party get a further extension of time?CPR 3.8(4) provides:‘In the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3) and unless the court orders otherwise, the time for doing the act in question may be extended by prior
Dispute Resolution analysis: In a rare successful application to set aside an arbitral award made in an ad hoc arbitration for serious irregularity under section 68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), the High Court found that a failure to cross-examine a witness on a ‘core issue’ left the
0330 161 1234