Tchenguiz & Anor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDER
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The SFO applied for security for costs against R20 due to ongoing litigation involving claims of unlawful actions, including trespass and breaches of the Human Rights Act. Initially, the SFO sought £6.25m in security, which was later reduced following R20's abandonment of certain claims. The court ultimately ordered R20 to provide security for costs amounting to £2.5m, taking into consideration principles of proportionality, joint, and several liabilities.
Judgment
CPR 31.22
Mr Justice Eder:
Introduction
This Judgment concerns an application by the claimants (the “RT claimants”) with regard to their proposed use of certain documents disclosed by the defendant (the “SFO”) in the course of the current proceedings.
In its original form, the application was in respect of two different categories of documents. The first category related to certain documents in respect of which the RT claimants wished to obtain legal advice from certain Guernsey lawyers. In the event, the SFO were “neutral” with regard to such application; and I made an order in effect permitting use of such documents for that purpose. It is unnecessary to say anything more with regard to such documents.
The second category related to some 198 documents which the RT claimants wish to provide to independent counsel not currently instructed in these proceedings for the purpose of obtaining such counsel’s advice (“criminal advice”) as to whether a certain third party, Grant Thornton UK LLP (“Grant Thornton”) and/or any of its servants/agents and/or any officers/agents of the SFO have committed any criminal offences by reason of Grant Thornton having provided to the SFO false or misleading allegations of criminal conduct by the first claimant, Robert Tchenguiz (“RT”); or by Grant Thornton having made false statements in court proceedings; and by reason of the ‘co-operative relationship’ which was formed between Grant Thornton and the SFO during its investigation into RT. The RT claimants also wish to obtain advice as to the prospects of and procedures for the initiation of a criminal prosecution if the view is taken that any criminal offence was committed. I shall refer to all the foregoing as the “proposed course of action”.
I should mention that for their part Grant Thornton (who were given notice of the RT claimants’ application) have confirmed through their solicitors that they have no objection to the proposed course of action.
As set out in his skeleton argument, Mr Bailin QC on behalf of the RT claimants summarised the specific reasons for the proposed course of action as being that these documents appear to raise serious issues about whether individuals employed:
by Grant Thornton made false or misleading statements to the SFO when providing information under s2 Criminal Justice 1987 (“CJA 1987”) which conduct may amount to a criminal offence under s2(14) CJA 1987;
by Grant Thornton made false allegations of criminal fraud to the SFO