Miller and Another v Scorey and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1996 |
| Date | 14 March 1996 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Mr Justice Rimer
Discovery of documents - undertaking not to disclose in similar action - breach constituted contempt
The implied undertaking given by a party to an action not to use documents disclosed on discovery in that action for any purpose except that action did not justify the use of the documents in another action against similar defendants and on closely related causes of action. Breach of an undertaking to the court constituted a contempt of court and an abuse of its process irrespective of the contemnor's intentions.
Mr Justice Rimer so held in the Chancery Division on, inter alia, a summons issued by the third defendant, Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd (MIA), to strike out an action commenced in 1995 by Roger George Miller and KC Independent Trustees Ltd, the present trustees of Rockwoods Holdings plc Group Pensions Scheme, against Michael George Scorey and others, the original trustees, as having been prosecuted in circumstances which constituted a contempt of court and an abuse of its process.
Mr James Clifford for MIA; Miss Josephine Hayes for the present trustees.
MR JUSTICE RIMER said that in 1993 the present trustees of the pension scheme commenced an action against the original trustees and others claiming, inter alia, an account of profits, alleged to be about £142,200, made as commission on an investment contract which they had wrongfully appropriated to themselves in September 1989.
In July 1995, in the course of discovery in the 1993 action, MIA disclosed documents which suggested to the plaintiff trustees that there was a strong case that MIA had paid to Mr Scorey and some other original trustees £225,000 effectively as bribes.
On the basis of that information the plaintiff trustees issued a new writ on September 4, 1995 seeking to recover the £225,000. The 1995 action could not and would not have been launched at all but for the information discovered in the 1993 action.
MIA now sought to strike out the 1995 action on the ground that it was started in breach of the implied undertaking given by the trustees not to use the documents disclosed in the 1993 action except for the purpose of the action in which they were disclosed.
Miss Hayes accepted that her client became subject to an implied undertaking not to use the documents for any ulterior or collateral purpose and that, if they were minded to use them for...
To continue reading
Request your trial