Court of Appeal condemns “Privilege Hunting” as an abuse of process: Salinas Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 940
In ‘Salinas Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 LTD [2026] EWCA Civ 940’ the Court of Appeal has delivered a stark warning to litigants tempted to gain an unfair advantage through “privilege hunting”.
While the courts remain reluctant to shut the courtroom doors by striking out a claim, the case demonstrates that, while remaining a remedy of last resort, the courts are willing to impose serious sanctions where parties engage in abusive conduct. This is particularly relevant, where a party seeks to obtain an opponent’s confidential and privileged information (so-called “privilege hunting”), in order to gain a litigation advantage, thereby threatening the integrity of the judicial process.
While the Court of Appeal characterised the conduct in issue here as a “very serious abuse of the process of the court”, it stopped short of striking out the claim entirely, emphasising that such a sanction is exceptional and should only be imposed where it is just and proportionate to do so.
Background
A claim was issued on 2 August 2024 by a wealthy Mexican businessman, Mr Ricardo Salinas Pliego, and a company under his control. The Claimants alleged that they had been induced into entering a stock lending agreement under false pretences and that, in exchange for a loan of approximately US $115 million, they transferred shares said to be worth around US $415 million. The Claimants pursued a range of claims against the Defendants, including claims for damages, proprietary relief, and equitable compensation arising from alleged knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.
During the proceedings, the Claimants obtained worldwide freezing orders against certain Defendants. The Defendants subsequently applied to discharge those orders, alleging that the Claimants had breached their duty of full and frank disclosure. However, these allegations were unrelated to the later allegations of “privilege hunting”, of which the Defendants were unaware at the time.
At some point before or after the freezing orders were obtained, the Claimants engaged Black Cube, a private intelligence firm staffed by former Israeli intelligence officers, to conduct a covert operation targeting the solicitor with conduct of the Defendants’ case. Operatives posing as prospective clients persuaded the solicitor to attend meetings in Amsterdam, which were secretly recorded. During those meetings, the solicitor disclosed information concerning litigation strategy, settlement considerations, perceived strengths and weaknesses of the case, and the practical effects of the freezing orders.
The recordings obtained through the covert operation were subsequently provided to the Claimants, who thereafter issued an application for summary judgment on 5 March 2025. The Defendants responded by applying to strike out or stay the claim for abuse of process, seeking directions that the information obtained by Black Cube was inadmissible, and applying to discharge the freezing orders obtained by the Claimants.
The key legal issue
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Claimants’ conduct in obtaining information through the Black Cube operation constituted an abuse of process and, if so, what consequences should follow. In particular, it considered whether the Deputy Judge had been correct to strike out the Claimants’ summary judgment application as a proportionate response to the misconduct, or whether a different sanction was warranted in the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court held that the Claimants’ conduct amounted to a serious abuse of process and condemned attempts to obtain privileged information from an opponent’s legal advisers through deceptive means.
Furthermore, the Court described the operation as a form of “privilege hunting” and regarded the deliberate targeting of the Defendants’ solicitor as particularly egregious. It rejected arguments that the conduct should be excused because some information might ultimately have fallen outside the protection of privilege or because the solicitor himself had acted improperly.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the misconduct, the Court declined to strike out the underlying claim. Instead, it concluded that the more appropriate response was to discharge the freezing orders obtained by the Claimants and allow the substantive proceedings to continue to trial. In reaching that conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that striking out a claim is a remedy of last resort, to be reserved for exceptional cases where no lesser sanction would be sufficient to protect the integrity of the justice system.
Key takeaways
1. Privilege hunting will be treated seriously
The judgment leaves little doubt that attempts to secure an opponent’s privileged or confidential information through covert, dishonest or deceptive means are likely to constitute an abuse of process.
2. Legal professional privilege remains fundamental
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that legal professional privilege is a fundamental aspect of the relationship of trust and confidence between solicitor and client, which is essential for the legal system to function in accordance with the interests of justice.
3. Strike-out remains exceptional
Even where litigation misconduct is severe, the courts will carefully consider proportionality before depriving a party of the opportunity to pursue its claim. The decision demonstrates a continued reluctance to strike out a claim unless absolutely necessary.
Comment
The judgment serves as a stark warning against attempts to gain a strategic advantage through covert intelligence-gathering exercises. It underscores the courts’ commitment to protecting the integrity of the judicial process while maintaining a proportionate approach to sanctions.
Although the Court of Appeal was unwilling to strike out the claim entirely, this decision demonstrates that serious consequences can follow where parties interfere with the fundamental protections that underpin the administration of justice.
Subcribe to news and views
