i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

WHOSE INIQUITY IS IT ANYWAY?

Wei Jian Chan*

Nathan Pillow

Accident Exchange v McLean
The recent decision of Sir Andrew Smith in Accident Exchange Ltd v McLean (“Accident Exchange”)1 has clarified the law relating to the iniquity exception to privilege2 in two significant ways. First, by establishing that the “innocent tool” test propounded by Lord Goff of Chieveley in R v Central Criminal Court, ex p Francis & Francis (“Francis & Francis”)3 is to be applied when determining whether an innocent client should lose privilege as a result of iniquity perpetrated by a third party. Second, by providing guidance as to how the “innocent tool” test is to be interpreted in practice.

Background to the case

The claimants (referred to as “AE” in the judgment) were companies providing replacement motor vehicles on credit terms to clients whose vehicles have been damaged in road accidents”.4 AE’s business involved recovering hire charges from drivers who had caused the accidents (“Defendant Drivers”) or their insurers, by means of credit hire claims. Autofocus Ltd (“AF”) were the perpetrators of “perjury on an industrial scale”5 in certain credit hire claims involving AE. As a provider of forensic services, AF fabricated and manipulated evidence about the rates of hire of replacement vehicles. AF’s perjured evidence was then used by some Defendant Drivers to “strip out” allegedly irrecoverable credit elements from vehicle hire charges levied by AE, to AE’s substantial detriment.6 AE accordingly brought a claim seeking damages for conspiracy and deceit against certain directors of AF as well as various solicitors who acted for the Defendant Drivers (the “Solicitor Defendants”). Following the exchange of disclosure lists, AE brought an application against the Solicitor Defendants seeking inspection of documents, over which the Solicitor Defendants asserted privilege on behalf of the Defendant Drivers. AE sought to rely on the iniquity exception to defeat this claim for privilege.
Accident Exchange also deals with an application by some of the Solicitor Defendants for disclosure of other documents held by solicitors acting for AE’s clients. This aspect of the judgment is not considered in this note.

34

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.