- Cited — Sports Direct International Plc v The Financial Reporting Council 2020-02-18
“…ing documents which are not themselves privileged do not achieve the protection of privilege by being attached to a privileged letter: see Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607 and Imerman v Tchenguiz [2009] EWHC 2902 (QB). He rejected a submission that a contrary proposition was supported by the reasoning of Snowden J in Property All…”
- Cited — The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2.Com Ltd, R. (on the Application of) 2020-01-28
“…at a document which is not privileged does not become so simply because it is sent to lawyers, even as part of a request for legal advice (Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607 at page 616F, and Imerman v Tchenguiz [2009] EWHC 2901 at [14]). In giving disclosure, some separate consideration of substantive documents and attachments the…”
- Cited — Curless v Shell International Ltd 2019-10-22
“…On the scope of the iniquity exception to LAP, in addition to some of the cases examined by the ET, Slade J referred to Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607 and Gamlen Chemical Ltd v Rochem Ltd (No 2) [1979] 124 SJ 276.…”
- Cited — Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe LLP 2019-10-02
“…In the course of his speech Lord Lloyd commended Bingham LJ’s statement of the principle in Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607, 611. That statement is:…”
- Cited — Bank Mellat v HM Treasury 2019-03-15
“…In Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607, Bingham LJ (as he then was) underlined (at p.622) that under the (old) RSC Ord. 24 regime, production and inspection were not automatic once relevance and the…”
- Cited — Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. Ltd 2018-09-05
“…dyard J in RBS had wrongly relied on observations made in a different context in Lyell v. Kennedy (No. 3) (1884) 27 Ch D 1 at page 26, and Ventouris v. Mountain[1991] 1 WLR 607.…”