Hughes v Biddulph
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1827 |
| Date | 08 December 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 777
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 367.
[190] hughes v. biddulph. Dec. 8, 1827. [See Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 367.] A Defendant will not be ordered to produce papers containing confidential communications between him and his solicitor, or between his country solicitor and town solicitor, made in the relation of solicitor and client during the progress of the suit, or with reference to it, previous to its commencement. The Defendant had admitted in her answer, that she had in her possession various papers and letters relating to the matters of the suit, but submitted, without assigning any specific reason, that she was not bound to produce them. A list of them was set forth in the schedule. The Vice-Chancellor had made the visual order for their production. An affidavit was subsequently made, that many of the papers and letters wern communications which had passed between her and her country solicitor, Mr. Douglas, or her town solicitor, Mr. "Williams, or between Mr. Douglas and Mr. Williams ; and upon that affidavit a motion was made to discharge so much of the order of the Vice-Chancellor as compelled the production of those communications. Douglas and Williams were not only her solicitors, but acted as her agents generally in the management of her affairs. Mr. Temple and Mr. Pemberton, for the motion. Confidential communications between a client and her solicitor ought to bo protected. " It is much to the credit of the defendant," says Lord Alvanley (3 Ves. 179), " to have stated all this evidence from his confidential letters ; otherwise I do not know how the Plaintiff could have compelled him to produce them." Cromack v. Heath-[l$l]-cote (2 Brod. & Bing. 4), Gardiner v. Mason (4 Bro. C. G. 479), Wright v. Mayer (6 Ves. 280), Atkyns v. Wright (14 Ves. 211), Evans v. Richard (1 Swanst. 8). Mr. Sugden and Mr. Jacob, contra. It has been determined in the House of Lords, that a party is bound to produce even a case which has been laid before counsel for their opinion. If such a document as that must be produced, why should communications between the Defendant and her solicitor be protected ? Douglas and Williams are her agents, as well as her solicitors ; and they were her agents in the very matters which are the subject of the suit. If she wished to raise a question as to the production of any of the papers, she ought to have distinguished those in her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
...716, referred to. (22) Hobbs v. Hobbs, [1960] P. 112; [1959] 3 All E.R. 827, dicta of Stevenson J. applied. (23) Hughes v. BiddulphENR(1827), 4 Russ. 190; 38 E.R. 777, referred to. (24) Istil Group Ltd. v. Zahoor, [2003] 2 All E.R. 252, dicta of Lawrence Collins J. distinguished. (25) Kurum......
-
Flight v Robinson
...Milner (11 Ves. 41), Richards v. Jackson (18 Ibid. 474), Glegg v. Legh (4 Mad. 193), Walker v. Wild/nan (6 Ibid. 47), Hughes v. tiiddulph (4 Russ. 190), Vent v. Paa-y (Ibid. 193), Garland v. Scott (3 Sim. 396), Newton v. Berexfffrd (You. 377), fialton v. Corporation of Liverpool (3 Sim. 467......
-
Nicholl v Jones
...the answer was filed : Raddiffe. v. Fursman (2 Bro. P. C. 514); Bolton v. Corporatimi of Liverpool (1 My. & K. 88) ; Hughes v. Biddulph (4 Russ. 190). The cases at law seem to have gone somewhat further, and to test the question by supposing the solicitor to be in the box as a witness, and ......
-
Manser v Dix
...should scarcely hesitate to decide in favour of the privilege. His Honour considered himself bound by the decisions in Hughes v. Biddulph (4 Russ. 190), Vent v. Pacey (Id. 193), and Bolton v. The Corporation of Liverpool (3 Sim. 467 ; S. C. I My. & K. 88), to hold that letters which passed ......