Redacted documents which had already been reviewed for privilege, and no obvious reason to question it
Redacted documents which had already been reviewed for privilege, and no obvious reason to question it
Mr Hossain addressed lines 14, 17 and 19 under this category. I have already addressed line 14 and say no more about it. Line 17 brings into play the claimants’ submissions in relation to disclosure issue D35 and is more conveniently dealt with in that category.
- Heading
- Background
- Disclosure
- The parties’ disclosure exercises
- Legal principles: privilege
- Inadvertent disclosure of privileged material
- Specific issues relevant to the review in this case
- The subjective review
- The relevance of Quinn Emanuel’s review
- The 20 groups of Use Pursued Documents
- Documents which did not appear obviously privileged
- Line 15
- Line 16
- Line 20
- Line 22
- Lines 24, 25 and 26
- Line 12
- Documents where there is an identifiable Lawyer recipient/ Commentator but not obvious that the content is legal advice
- Line 14
- Redacted documents which had already been reviewed for privilege, and no obvious reason to question it
- Line 19
- Documents where redaction was inconsistent
- Documents in which the content is potentially legal advice or reflects the substance of legal advice, but it was considered these were deliberately disclosed as answering to D35
- Conclusions
![HT-2022-000132 - [2025] EWHC 1058 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)