MJM Ltd v Apex Fund Services Ltd (ruling on anonymisation)

JurisdictionBermuda
Judgment Date12 March 2020
Docket NumberCivil Jurisdiction 2019 No 163
Date12 March 2020
CourtSupreme Court (Bermuda)

[2020] Bda LR 18

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

Civil Jurisdiction 2019 No 163

Between:
MJM Limited
Plaintiff
and
Apex Fund Services Ltd
Defendant

Mr B Adamson for the Plaintiff

Mr A Potts QC and Ms L Williamson for the Defendant

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

Director for Public Prosecutions v Clarke [2019] Bda LR 46

R (on the application of Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 674

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technolgies Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 3083

Anonymisation of judgment — Principles to be applied — Redactions — Legal professional privilege

RULING of Hargun CJ

1. On 28 November 2019, the Court delivered a Judgment in relation to these proceedings commenced by MJM Limited (the “Plaintiff” or “MJM”) against Apex Fund Services Ltd (the “Defendant” or “Apex”) by Originating Summons dated 1 May 2019 seeking a declaration that MJM was not prevented, by reason of its prior representation of Apex in relation to a subpoena duces tecum issued in a previous action between two unrelated parties (“the Previous Action”), from acting for Matthew Clingerman in his capacity as receiver of the Silk Road M3 Fund in proceedings against Apex in Civil Action 2019 No. 64 (the “M3 Fund action”). The Court made a declaration that MJM was not prevented, by reason of its prior representation of Apex in the Previous Action, from acting for Matthew Clingerman in the M3 Fund action.

2. On 29 January 2020, the Court heard arguments, on behalf of Apex, as to whether the Judgment should be published and if so under what conditions. Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Court should either not publish the Judgment at all (beyond publication to the parties themselves), or the Court should only publish the judgment subject to anonymisation of the name and identity of the Defendant, and (at the least) very substantial redactions to the text of the Judgment so far as it relates to a privileged and confidential information belonging to the Defendant. Mr Potts QC submitted that, in relation to privileged information, the Defendant's objection related to the subject matter of the Previous Action and in particular, the information they received from the Defendant. Mr Potts suggested that the privileged material could, with some delicate drafting, be shifted into a Confidential Appendix.

3. Counsel for MJM agreed that the Judgment should be redacted so as to remove any reference to privileged material, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT