Equititrust Ltd (In Liq) (Receiver Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Equititrust Ltd (In Liq) (Receiver Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed); In the Matter of Equititrust Ltd (In Liq)

The case involves Equititrust Ltd, which is in liquidation, and its receivers and managers, who are in dispute with other receivers and managers regarding claims of legal professional privilege over certain documents. The court was required to determine whether the documents were privileged, and if so, whether the privilege was joint or common interest privilege. The court examined the evidence provided in support of the claim for privilege, which included communications between the director, Mr McIvor, and various legal advisors. The court noted that the evidence was scant and did not establish the nature of the retainers between Mr McIvor and the legal advisors. The court considered whether the documents were created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or receiving legal advice and whether the privilege claimed was joint or common interest privilege.

The court held that the claim for legal professional privilege was not made out as the evidence provided was insufficient. The court noted that the evidence amounted to a series of assertions by Mr Conomos, who was Mr McIvor's solicitor, and did not establish the nature of the retainers between Mr McIvor and the legal advisors. The court also held that the privilege claimed was not joint privilege as there was no evidence of a joint retainer between Mr McIvor and the legal advisors. The court further held that the privilege claimed was not common interest privilege as there was no evidence of a common interest in the outcome of the litigation. The court held that the privilege claim was not made out as the evidence provided was insufficient.

The court ordered that the second respondent may uplift the privileged documents from the court, but must provide redacted copies of certain documents to the court. The court also ordered that the fifth and sixth respondents may inspect and take copies of any documents in Schedules 1 and 2 in relation to which the second respondent's claim for privilege has been rejected. The court further ordered that the second respondent must pay the fifth and sixth respondents' costs of the interlocutory application and their costs relating to the determination of the second respondent's privilege claim. The interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed.