- Committal permission refused for alleged collateral use of disclosure documents (Grosvenor Chemicals v UPL Europe)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- How did the alleged contempt arise?
- What were the procedural issues arising on this committal permission application?
- Had the correct procedure for the committal application been observed?
- The approach to determining committal permission—adapting Tinkler v Elliot
- The collateral purpose rule of CPR 31.22
- Whose actions could amount to contempt—the solicitors, their clients or both?
- Mishcon letter to Grosvenor’s solicitors
- Mishcon letter to Dr Affi
- Contempt—public interest and proportionality
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Notwithstanding that Mishcon de Reya LLP were found to have breached CPR 31.22 in using documents disclosed in proceedings to threaten a third party with fresh proceedings, such breach had been neither deliberate nor reckless (therefore there was no strong prima facie case for establishing contempt) and their subsequent conduct in apologising and confirming they would not repeat such use of the documents without consent meant that permission to continue the committal application would not be given, to do otherwise would be to ‘promote the worst kind of satellite litigation.’
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial