Ricardo Benjamin Salinas Pliego & Anor v Astor Asset Management 3 Limited & Ors

A litigant who deliberately deceives an opponent’s solicitor in order to obtain confidential and privileged litigation information, and then seeks to use the resulting tactical advantage, abuses the court’s process. The abuse has a sufficient nexus with the proceedings even if a fair trial remains possible and even if some material may ultimately fall outside privilege under the iniquity exception.

The court’s response protects its process, deters similar conduct and must be proportionate. Strike-out remains a last resort; there is no special rule making it the default response to privilege hunting. A court may refuse summary judgment founded on abuse and discharge discretionary freezing relief where the abuse was material to the continuation of that relief.

The claimants alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced them to enter a stock-lending transaction and misappropriated shares worth substantially more than the loan advanced. They obtained worldwide freezing orders and later applied for summary judgment.

While the proceedings were pending, the claimants engaged Black Cube to deceive the solicitor conducting the defendants’ case into discussing confidential litigation, settlement and strategic matters. The High Court held that this was an abuse of process. It struck out the summary judgment application but neither struck out the claim nor discharged the freezing orders: [2025] EWHC 2968 (Comm).

The claimants appealed the abuse finding and the loss of their summary judgment application. The defendants cross-appealed, seeking strike-out of the whole claim or discharge of the freezing orders. The central issue was the proportionate judicial response to deliberate privilege hunting.

1. The claimants’ appeal was dismissed and the defendants’ cross-appeal was allowed in part. The claim was not struck out, but all freezing orders obtained by the claimants were discharged.

2. Deliberately targeting an opponent’s solicitor by deception to obtain confidential and privileged information for use in litigation was a serious abuse of process. There was a direct nexus between the conduct and the proceedings. The operation gave the claimants tactical insight, disrupted the defendants’ representation, caused substantial satellite litigation and delay, and consumed court resources. A finding of abuse did not depend on establishing that a fair trial had become impossible, consistently with Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd [2012] UKSC 26.

3. The solicitor’s own culpability did not reduce the claimants’ responsibility. His disclosure was the object of the deception. Nor could a possible application of the iniquity exception retrospectively justify an operation undertaken to obtain information which the claimants could not then know was unprivileged.

4. The court’s response is protective, not punitive. It must safeguard the administration of justice, include deterrence and remain proportionate. There is no distinct default rule that privilege hunting automatically requires strike-out. Strike-out is a last resort, particularly where it may leave an alleged fraudster with the fruits of fraud. The Deputy Judge was therefore right to prevent the claimants obtaining summary judgment on material precipitated by their abuse; there was a compelling reason for trial under CPR 24.3(b).

5. However, striking out the summary judgment application alone was insufficient. The Deputy Judge had wrongly treated the acquisition of the information as not unlawful and had failed to consider discharge of the freezing orders. The claimants were pursuing the Black Cube operation while seeking or maintaining discretionary freezing relief, without informing the court of conduct of which the defendants could not know. The abuse also yielded information about the pressure caused by those orders. The orders should therefore be discharged, including those supporting proprietary claims.

6. The defendants may seek enforcement of the claimants’ cross-undertakings in damages. If the claim succeeds at trial, the trial judge must decide, on the full evidence, whether the abuse affects equitable, proprietary, discretionary, interest and costs relief.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the claimants’ appeal and allowed the defendants’ cross-appeal only to the extent of discharging the freezing orders: [2026] EWCA Civ 940 .
• High Court, Commercial Court: found the Black Cube operation abusive, struck out the claimants’ summary judgment application, and deferred issues concerning the material’s evidential status and the fairness of a trial: [2025] EWHC 2968 (Comm) .