AB Orlen Lietuva v AON UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Flaux |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3862 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2012 Folio 1157 |
| Date | 01 November 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
[2013] EWHC 3862 (Comm)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
7 Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Flaux
Case No: 2012 Folio 1157
Mr Michael Holmes (Instructed by Covington & Burling LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Richard Jacobs QC and Mr Peter Ratcliffe (Instructed by Holman Fenwick Willan LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants
Approved Judgment
Friday, 1 November 2013
Paragraph 1 of the order which I am making relates to the production of seven confidential documents from the Yukos arbitration identified in Covington & Burling's letter of 20 October 2013, which consists of six witness statements and the statement of case in that arbitration, which was an arbitration between the sellers of the refinery and the parent company and the claimants, who were the buyers of the refinery and the relevant partners and solicitors at Covington & Burling have signed confidentiality agreements.
There is an obvious reluctance on the part of the claimants and their solicitors in those circumstances to disclosing this material unless the court makes an order. These are not said to be privileged documents; they are confidential documents. Were there some commercial sensitivity about disclosure of these documents, one suspects it would have emerged by now and, on the face of it, witness statements and statements of case are unlikely to have any commercial sensitivity and I also have in mind that the defendants here are a major firm of insurance brokers and are not, in any sense, commercial rivals of any of the parties involved in the arbitration.
The relevant principle as to whether confidential documents should be disclosed is really that set out by the House of Lords in Science Research Council v Nassé [1980] AC 1028. The ultimate test is whether disclosure and inspection is necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings and that principle was recognised and re-stated more recently by Ramsey J in Crofthouse Care v Durham County Council [2010] EWHC 909 TCC at...
To continue reading
Request your trial