A round-up of recent litigation cases - May 2022

We bring together a round-up of some recent litigation cases that may be of interest to you.


A corporate claimant could not claim litigation privilege in respect of the identities of the individuals giving privileged instructions to lawyers on its behalf. There was no evidence to suggest that disclosing their identities would undermine the privilege of the instructions. The judge rejected the argument that the identity of those providing instructions is protected simply because it falls within a “zone of privacy” around the preparation of a party’s case. (Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd).

Draft judgments embargo

Under PD 40E parties to litigation are entitled to take internal steps to prepare for publication of the judgment after seeing the draft, including teeing up draft communications to customers or the press and considering any immediate operational impact. By contrast, the defendant’s disclosure of the outcome to journalists on confidential terms and subject to an agreement that they would not publish anything until after formal hand down was a clear breach of the embargo (Match Group LLC v Muzmatch Ltd).

Effect of using wrong claim form

A failure to complete Form N510 for service out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.34(1) does not permit the court to refuse to issue the claim form when requested to do so (Chelfat v Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd ).

Relief from sanctions

The Court of Appeal confirmed that it is possible for the court to give relief from sanctions for a failure to comply with an unless order without a formal application (Park v Hadi).

Service of particulars of claim

Where there had been no explicit indication in writing from the defendant that service by email was acceptable, service of particulars of claim by email did not constitute proper service for the purposes of CPR PD 6A para 4.1. The inclusion of an email address in a notice of acting from the defendant's solicitors does not, without more, constitute such an indication (McAlpine Ltd v Richardson Roofing Co Ltd.)


As a matter of language, a "review" of the claimants' tax affairs referred to in a witness statement had been a process, which probably generated documents, but it was not itself a document or a collection of documents that could be ordered to be produced under CPR PD 51U para 21 (Hoegh v Taylor Wessing).

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Mills & Reeve Sites navigation
A tabbed collection of Mills & Reeve sites.
My Mills & Reeve navigation
Subscribe to, or manage your My Mills & Reeve account.
My M&R


Register for My M&R to stay up-to-date with legal news and events, create brochures and bookmark pages.

Existing clients

Log in to your client extranet for free matter information, know-how and documents.


Mills & Reeve system for employees.