C v C & Anor

Mrs Rebecca Carew Pole (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) for the petitioner wife Mr Philip Rutter (of Collyer-Bristow) for the first respondent husband Mr Eason Rajah (instructed by Taylor Wessing) for the second respondent anstalt Mr Ian Cook (instructed by Messrs X) for Messrs X Ruling on further written submissions lodged on 17 and 20 March 2006 ____________________

i) The wife is to pay the husband's and the anstalt's costs of the inspection appointment on 21 February 2006 (that is, their costs from 10 February 2006 onwards, including their costs of the subsequent argument about the costs) such costs to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed.

i) The only ground of appeal which raises a clear point of law � Ground 3 � I regard as scarcely arguable. As I said (see paragraph [34] above), it is "perfectly obvious" that privilege arises in these circumstances.

ii) In relation to each of the other grounds of appeal my decision involved no more than the application of well-established principles to the facts of the particular case. It is said � see Grounds 1, 2 and 4 � that I "erred", though it is not clear whether what is being said is that I erred in law or in my approach or whether it is said that I was 'plainly wrong'. On whichever basis the point is being put, I do not accept that there is sufficient arguable merit to justify the grant of permission to appeal.

iii) In substance my decision on the major issue � see Ground 4 � was that the wife had simply failed to satisfy the heavy burden which lies upon anyone seeking to go behind privilege on the ground of 'fraud': see paragraph [62] above. There was sufficient suspicion to justify orders for disclosure � it could not be said that the wife was embarking upon a mere fishing expedition � but that is not, without more ado, sufficient justification for going behind privilege. Strong evidence is required; strong evidence, in my judgment, was lacking.