BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions >> Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) (15 February 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2017/218.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Wheeldon Brothers Waste Limited |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
Millennium Insurance Company Limited |
Defendant |
____________________
Graham Eklund QC (instructed by Mills & Reeve LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 3 February 2017
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
The Hon. Mr Justice Coulson :
"You must treat all information, facts, matters, documents and all other materials which come to your attention as a result of this instruction as confidential and such items may not be disclosed to other parties without our client's consent."
"5.3…In my opinion, the evidence suggests strongly that the cause of the fire was ignition of combustible material by frictional heating, hot metal fragments or sparks resulting from failure of the replacement bearing, but there is insufficient evidence to say which of these caused ignition."
This conclusion was unsurprising since it was precisely the same conclusion that he had reached the previous year. The remainder of the report explained Mr Braund's opinion "that there was a design, installation or manufacturing defect in the conveyor which ultimately led to the fire."
"It is in any case difficult to discern any justification in principle for a rule which exposes a former client without his consent to any avoidable risk, however slight, that information which he has imparted in confidence in the course of a fiduciary relationship may come into the possession of a third party and be used to his disadvantage. Where in addition the information in question is not only confidential but also privileged, the case for a strict approach is unanswerable…
I prefer simply to say that the court should intervene unless it is satisfied that there is no risk of disclosure. It goes without saying that the risk must be a real one, and not merely fanciful or theoretical. But it need not be substantial."