||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 110 (Oct)
|| EWCA Civ 1154
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Pill, Munby and Lewison LJJ
||Michael Brindle QC and Simon Goldstone (instructed by Zaiwalla & Co) for the claimants.
||Richard Lissack QC and Nicholas Medcroft (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP) for the defendant.
||13 October 2011
Disclosure and inspection of documents - Production of documents - Redaction - Claimant commencing action against defendant bank - Defendant making standard disclosure of relevant documents - Names of employees redacted - Judge holding names be revealed through disclosure but ordering withholding on ground of public interest immunity - Whether judge erring in holding that names be revealed - CPR 31.6.
Disclosure and inspection of documents Production of documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the defendant bank did not have to reveal the names of its employees who had reported their suspicions of money laundering on the part of the claimants as the disclosure requirements of CPR31.6 had not been met.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases