Stiedl v Enyo Law LLP & Ors

The claimant, a defendant in related multi‑party proceedings, sought an injunction to restrain the claimant-litigants' solicitors (Enyo and formerly Addleshaw Goddard) from acting because allegedly privileged and confidential documents of his had been copied from Innovator's server and subject to an electronic "Tier 1" review. The court applied established equitable principles distinguishing cases where a firm previously acted for a client and thereby acquired confidential information from cases where a firm comes into possession of another party's confidential material without a prior lawyer-client relationship.

The judge held that the ordinary consequence in the latter class of case is an injunction preventing use of the information rather than disqualification of the solicitors' firm, but that the court must assess whether there is a "real" risk (more than fanciful or theoretical) that the information could be used to the applicant's disadvantage. Having examined the evidence about the nature of the Tier 1 review, the identity of those who performed it and the documents identified as prima facie privileged, the judge concluded there was no real risk of recallable or substantive use of privileged material by those now at Enyo and that the relief sought to disqualify Enyo from acting would be disproportionate.

The application was therefore dismissed but Enyo was ordered, pending any further order, not to use the documents identified as prima facie privileged in the main proceedings.

This was an interlocutory application by Mr Bjorn Stiedl seeking injunctive relief to prevent the claimant solicitors in a large commercial claim from continuing to act and from using documents which he asserted were his confidential and privileged material. The documents had been copied from InnovatorOne PLC's server by the company liquidator and supplied to the claimants' solicitors; a large electronic document review (a "Tier 1" review) had been carried out by junior fee‑earners and paralegals and later independently reviewed for relevance and privilege.

Nature of the application:

• An injunction restraining Enyo Law LLP and Addleshaw Goddard LLP from acting for the claimants in the main proceedings;
• An injunction restraining the solicitors from making use of privileged or confidential documents copied from Innovator's server.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether there was a real risk that the contents of the documents could be used to the prejudice of Mr Stiedl such that the solicitors should be disqualified from acting;
• The correct approach to remedy where a firm comes into possession of an adversary's confidential material without a prior solicitor–client relationship, and whether exceptional circumstances justified departing from the ordinary remedy (an injunction against use rather than firm disqualification);
• Whether, on the facts of the Tier 1 review and subsequent independent review, any substantive confidential information had been acquired or was recallable by present members of Enyo; and
• The proportionality of disqualifying the solicitors so close to trial and balancing any prejudice to the claimant‑litigants against prejudice to Mr Stiedl and the fair trial rights engaged (including Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR considerations).

Court's reasoning and conclusions:

The judge accepted the established distinction between prior solicitor–client cases (where firm disqualification is ordinarily appropriate) and cases where the firm acquires material without a prior retainer (where the usual remedy is injunctive restraint on use). He directed a balancing exercise: whether there was a "real" (more than fanciful) risk that the solicitors could derive an advantage from the material. The judge examined the evidence describing the Tier 1 review as a superficial, large‑scale cull of irrelevant material conducted by junior reviewers who could not recall contents of individual documents. He reviewed the documents highlighted by Mr Stiedl and concluded most disclosed nothing beyond material already known to the claimants, were general in nature, or inconsistent with any real prejudice; only a very small number gave any limited cause for concern but not to a degree that would justify the drastic remedy of firm disqualification on the facts of this case.

The judge therefore dismissed the application but ordered that, pending any further court order, no use of the documents identified as prima facie privileged should be made in the main proceedings.

The application is dismissed. The court found no real risk that the Tier 1 review produced recallable, substantive confidential information that could be used to Mr Stiedl's prejudice by those now at Enyo; the firm need not be disqualified. As a precautionary measure, pending any further order, Enyo must not make use of the documents identified as prima facie privileged in the main proceedings.