An email containing legal advice leaked to a claimant in an employment dispute did not fall foul of the iniquity principle and therefore remained privileged. An overheard conversation, believed to be in relation to the claimant's dismissal, could not be relied on to aid the interpretation of the email as there was no evidence that the individuals engaged in the conversation had seen it.
When will an order for costs be made against a family member who was not a party to the underlying proceedings but who contributed significantly to funding the losing party's defence? According to a recent case, the answer is when the funder has a personal interest in the litigation.
The High Court recently clarified that merely contracting with another party and thereby giving it the opportunity or means to breach another pre-existing contract is not itself sufficient to constitute inducing breach of contract. More practically, the case is a reminder of the perils of becoming involved as a third party in others' disputes.
The Court of Appeal recently confirmed that Article 6(1) of the Lugano Convention is not subject to a 'sole object' test. Where claimants have a sustainable claim against an 'anchor defendant' that they intend to pursue to judgment, they can rely on Article 6(1) to bring a foreign co-defendant within the jurisdiction. This decision will be of significant assistance to claimants where one or more co-defendants are domiciled in their preferred jurisdiction.
In a recent case involving a man killed on a motorway, the High Court set out the difference between evidence which will be subject to Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 35's restrictions and that which will not. Specifically, where relevant opinion evidence (even hearsay) is prepared by someone qualified to give expert evidence, it will generally be prima facie admissible. However, where evidence is produced by an expert instructed by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings, it will be subject to CPR 35.