Litigation privilege, client identities and CPR18 requests (Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd)

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant asserted litigation privilege over details of individuals who instructed its solicitors. The Court of Appeal held that litigation privilege protects communications, accordingly, (i) it will not usually protect the identity of the persons communicating with solicitors in relation to litigation, unless (ii) such disclosure would inhibit candid discussion between lawyer and client; (iii) in general, there would be no such inhibition, albeit (iv) it might be possible that identification would reveal something about the content of the communication, but this would require explanation as the basis of a claim for privilege. Accordingly, Loreley had to remove redactions in its disclosed engagement letter over a section headed ‘Next steps and reporting arrangements’. However, a declaration requiring disclosure of the identities of individuals authorised to instruct the solicitors was set aside; nor was Loreley required to answer a CPR 18 request for such information as not being strictly necessary...