Cases

White v Withers LLP & Dearle

Held

Striking out the claim for want of cause of action:

(1) There was no evidence to suggest that W’s interception of C’s mail was done at Ds’ instigation. Mere assertion by C would not suffice.

(2) On the evidence, although Ds had possessed C’s personal documents, they had all been returned upon request by C; therefore at no point had Ds asserted a property right over the original documents contrary to C’s own right. No conventional domestic law wrong, or criminal act, had been committed in this respect.

(3) Ds had not ‘misused’ information, or breached confidence. Such information as they had been given had been received, noted and retained purely for use in connection with court proceedings and the protection of their client’s interest in that context. This accorded with the common practice recognised in the Hildebrand cases.

Also