Webster v James Chapman & Company (A Firm)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1989 |
| Date | 1989 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
30 cases
-
Gelatissimo Ventures (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Singapore Flyer Pte Ltd
...20 Counsel for the defendant had relied on the case of Calcraft v Guest (supra 10) as well as Webster v James Chapman & Co (a firm) [1989] 3 All ER 939 to support his argument that even if the information contained in the email thread was privileged, secondary evidence of that communication......
-
Telesystem Intl Wireless Inc. v CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners LP
...E.R. 236. (9) Waugh v. British Rys. Bd., [1974] A.C. 405; [1973] 2 All E.R. 1169, applied. (10) Webster v. James Chapman & Co. Ltd., [1989] 3 All E.R. 939, applied. (11) Wisniewski v. Central Manchester Health Auth., [1998] Lloyds Rep. Med. 223; [1998] P.I.Q.R. P324, considered. Attorneys-a......
-
JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
...v. BakerELR, [1998] Ch. 356; sub nom. Barings plc., Re, UNK[1998] 1 All E.R. 673, referred to. (43) Webster v. James Chapman & Co., [1989] 3 All E.R. 939, considered. (44) Wentworth v. Lloyd(1864), 10 H.L. Cas. 589; 11 E.R. 1154, dicta of Lord Chelmsford considered. Attorneys-at-Law-profess......
-
ISTIL Group Inc. v Zahoor
...was no confidence in iniquity, and a public interest in the court not being misled. 46 At the hearing the defendants relied on Webster v. James Chapman & Co [1989] 3 All ER 940, a decision of Scott J, for the proposition that the court conducts a balancing exercise where privileged document......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
ADMISSIBILITY, PRIVILEGE AND THE EXPUNGING OF EVIDENCE
...LJJ in R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex p Osman, [1989] 3 All ER 701 at 730; and, Scott J. in Webster v James Chapman & Co. [1989] 3 All ER 939. 24 Supra, note 20. See also Lloyd v Mostyn(1842) 10 M & W 478. 25 Newbold, “Inadvertent Disclosure in Civil Proceedings”(1991) 107 LQR 99. 2......