Tchenguiz & Ors v The Serious Fraud Office
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDER
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
An application was made to use Guernsey documents disclosed by the SFO in different proceedings. The application was partially denied on the basis of public interest and statutory restrictions. The court had to balance the interest of justice and public interest in discovering the truth with the need to protect confidential information from a criminal investigation, ultimately ruling that permission could not be granted for using these documents in collateral Guernsey proceedings.
Judgment
Mr Justice Eder:
On 21 July 2014 I heard an application on behalf of the first claimant (“RT”) for the following orders:
Permission be granted under CPR r.31.22(1)(b) for Stephenson Harwood LLP to give the 22 documents listed in Schedule 1 to this Order (the “Guernsey Documents”) to lawyers (“Guernsey Counsel”) instructed on behalf of (a) the First Claimant, (b) Rawlinson & Hunter S.A. in its capacity as Trustee of the Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust (“TDT”) and/or (c) the minor beneficiaries of the TDT.
Permission be granted under CPR r.31.22(1)(b) for Guernsey Counsel (if so advised) to seek to have the Guernsey Documents admitted in evidence in the case of Investec and another v Glenalla Properties Ltd and others , Court file no. 1462/2010 (the “Guernsey 1 proceedings”) and in any appeal(s) in those proceedings.
Permission be granted under CPR r.31.22(1)(b) for Stephenson Harwood LLP to give the Guernsey Documents to counsel (“Criminal Counsel”) instructed to advise the First Claimant on whether the documents seen by Criminal Counsel show or tend to show that criminal offences have been committed by Grant Thornton UK LLP and/or any servants or agents of Grant Thornton UK LLP and/or any officers/agents of the SFO.
At the outset of the hearing, an application was made on behalf of the HM Procureur for Guernsey (“HMP”) to intervene in this application. That application to intervene was not opposed by RT or the SFO. In the circumstances, I granted the application to intervene.
At the end of the hearing, I informed the parties of my decision viz I would grant the permission sought under paragraphs (i) and (iii) above; but I would decline to grant the permission sought as set out in paragraph (ii) above. This Judgment sets out my reasons for those decisions.
The Guernsey 1 proceedings as referred to in paragraph 1(ii) above are proceedings in the Royal Court of Guernsey. They are described in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the second witness statement of RT and paragraph 97 of the claimants’ Further Particulars of Fact. In summary they relate to certain arrangements described as “ intercompany loans ”. The trial of the Guernsey 1 proceedings took place during June 2012. Judgment was delivered by Lieutenant Bailiff Sir John Chadwick on 6 December 2013. In particular, he held that the intercompany loans which Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd as trustee of the TDAT (“ITGL”) had carried out gave rise to valid loans between ITGL and two other entities referre