The discovery process in civil litigation and the restrictions on disclosure of Section 348 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
| Published date | 15 May 2007 |
| Date | 15 May 2007 |
| Pages | 221-226 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980710744110 |
| Author | Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMMENTARY
The discovery process in civil
litigation and the restrictions on
disclosure of Section 348
Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000
Joanna Gray
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To report and comment on the case Real Estate Opportunities v. Aberdeen Asset
Managers Jersey Ltd & Ors.
Design/methodology/approach – Outlines the facts and explains the decision reached.
Findings – The Court ruled that the rules relating to the attribution of knowledge to a company of
the knowledge of its individual employees meant that knowledge acquired by an employee in the
course and for the purpose of his employment is properly attributable to the employer.
Originality/value – The decision is significant insofar as it provides some insight into the practical
effect of Section 348 beyond the immediate circumstances where it was designed to provide
confidentiality protections, namely the conduct of regulatory investigations themselves.
Keywords Tribunals, Legaldecisions, Litigation
Paper type Viewpoint
Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v. Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd & Ors
(High Court: Chancery Division: Mr Justice David Richards).
Date of Judgment: 15 December 2006
Facts
In June 2001, the claimant company Real Estate Opportunities Ltd (REO) a Jersey
based investment company, was floated with a split capital structure. The first and
second defendant companies, part of the Aberdeen asset management group were
appointed by the claimant to provide investment management services. The Aberdeen
group were one of the leading fund managers in the split capital investment companies
sector. The third defendant company was UBS which had acted as a sponsor to the
flotation of REO. UBS had considerable investment banking experience in the splits
market. The proceedings brought by the claimant against all three defendants sought
to establish case that all three defendants owed it duties of care in tort and that the first
and second defendants also owed contractual duties as regards the advice provided in
respect of the flotation, the financial model to be adopted by it and its investment
objectives and policy, and that the defendants were in breach of those duties. As is well
known to readers of this Journal, the collapse of the splits market in 2001 resulted in
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
The discovery
process in civil
litigation
221
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 15 No. 2, 2007
pp. 221-226
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581980710744110
To continue reading
Request your trial