Civil dispute resolution Portfolio 3 answer PDF

Preview

Summary

This is a detailed answer to the exam question on portfolio b. which was graded as a first class....

Description

Civil dispute Resolution Portfolio Task C From: Rose Hathaway To: Rebecca Jones Date: 20 September 2020 Client’s name: Emmanuel Ajala Client’s matter: Dispute that has risen with Always Insurance Limited Amendments to the draft lists of documents You have asked me to identify the amendments and additions to the draft lists of documents and by looking at the draft lists of documents a few amendments can be made. Part 1 For Part 1 according to PDA, para 3.2 it will normally be necessary to list the documents in date order, to number them consecutively and to give each a concise description…. In this case it means that we will have to change the order of the list to order of date. As the order changes it should be noted that the reports from Mrs Louise Tan will have to be excluded from this list as they are covered by legal professional litigation privileges. When we remove the reports, we can add the insurance policy document as it is a contractual document that shows the terms of the insurance agreement. PD 31A, para 3.2 further states that …where there is a large number of documents all falling into a particular category, the disclosing party may list those documents as a category rather than individually. This will apply to the statements of case where it identifies how many statements of cases are present and highlight the dates they fall under, not to just write various dates. After the amendments part 1 will look like this: 1. 1.Defendant’s receipt dated 29 November 2018 for payment by the Claimant of the premium for the insurance policy number 1234ABC dated 1 December 2018 (no other information is recorded in this document and it is not produced for the purposes of this Assessment). 2. Insurance policy document from Defendant to Claimant dated 1 December 2018. 3. Claimant's proof of evidence dated 26 July 2019. 4. (Number of) Statements of case in this action, _20_ to _20_ (not produced for the purposes of this Assessment). Part 2 Rule 31.19(3) states that a person who wishes to claim that he has a right or a duty to withhold inspection of a document, or part of a document must state in writing - that he has such a right or duty and the grounds on which he claims that right of duty. In this case, a few amendments can be made. The conclusion made for the documents passing between the Claimant’s solicitors and the Claimant is correct to say it is covered by legal professional advice privilege but then adding a reason to that will suffice. It would then read that the documents in paragraph 1 are covered by legal professional advice privilege because the purpose of these documents were to give or receive legal advice. The documents in paragraph 2 are covered correctly and will only need to add that this is because it was for the purposes of receiving or giving legal advice.

The documents in paragraph 3 are surely in the right place but the reason given for why it cannot be inspected is wrong. This letter was between the client’s solicitor and a third party during adversarial litigation and this was to prepare for that litigation and there was no waiver of privilege. This then means that this paragraph will fall under legal professional litigation privilege. The statement should then read; the document in paragraph 3 above is covered by legal professional litigation privilege because the sole purpose of this document was to prepare for litigation. It is true that the document in paragraph 4 is confidential but that is not enough reason to be excluded from inspection. This document does not fall in either legal professional advice privilege or legal professional litigation privilege. This is because was not communication between a solicitor and his client and neither was its communication between a third party and client or third party and solicitor. The entry was simply something that the client remembered and wrote down in his diary. This document should be removed in part 2. An addition to part 2 can be made by adding the expert reports from Mrs Louise Tan. This is because an expert report obtained by claimant when this litigation was reasonably contemplated. The sole purpose of creating such a document was to have it as evidence for this specific litigation hence attracting legal professional litigation privilege. This also applies to the report between Claimant’s solicitor and Mrs Louise Tan. Part 3 This is covered by Rule 31.10(4)(b) where the list must indicate those documents [that are not privileged from inspection] which are no longer in the party’s control and highlight what happened to those documents. In this case nothing of that sort is done hence these needs amending. This means that you must individually identify the document with its date, the maker and where known. After that you highlight what happened to it. In conclusion one might say that this document needed a few amendments as most of the documents were accounted for. Rose Hathaway Trainee Solicitor

Word:841...