'Privilege hunting' is an abuse of process: the Court of Appeal condemns a Black Cube sting on an opponent's solicitor

A wealthy litigant’s team hired private investigators to trick the other side’s solicitor into giving up confidential secrets about the case. What should the court do about it? On 21 July 2026 the Court of Appeal gave its answer. In Salinas Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 940, the Court held that this “privilege hunting” was a serious abuse of process, dismissed the claimants’ appeal, and discharged the freezing orders they had obtained — but declined to strike out their underlying fraud claim.

What the case was about

Mr Ricardo Salinas Pliego, a wealthy Mexican businessman, and his company RBS say they were defrauded under a 2021 stock lending agreement: they lent about US$115 million against Grupo Elektra shares worth roughly US$415 million, most of the proceeds ending up under the control of the fourth defendant, Mr Vladimir Sklarov (paras 7, 13, 15–16). Having obtained worldwide freezing orders and issued their claim, the claimants engaged Black Cube — a firm staffed by former Israeli intelligence officers — under a retainer of £1,144,000 plus a success fee (paras 22, 27). Its operative posed as a prospective client and, over three recorded meetings, drew the defendants’ solicitor (“X”, a partner at DWF Law) into revealing their litigation and settlement strategy and the impact of the freezing orders (paras 2, 31, 34–40). The Deputy High Court judge, Mr Stephen Houseman KC, found the sting an abuse of process but declined to strike out the claim, instead striking out the claimants’ summary judgment application (paras 4, 9). The claimants appealed that finding; the defendants cross-appealed for strike-out (paras 5, 10).

What the Court of Appeal decided

Lord Justice Males — with whom Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Foxton agreed — held the claimants’ conduct was “a very serious abuse of the process of the court” (paras 74, 79). Obtaining privileged information by suborning an opponent’s solicitor through deception was “a form of corruption” (para 79). It made no difference that X was himself at fault, or that some of the information might ultimately fall within the “iniquity exception” to privilege (Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP): the claimants could not have known that when they sanctioned the operation (paras 75–77). But the Court rejected any rule that privilege hunting must always end in strike-out; the response to an abuse must be proportionate and aimed at protecting the court’s process, not punishing the party (paras 82, 90–93). The Deputy Judge was right to refuse summary judgment (para 87) but wrong to treat that as a sufficient response and to overlook discharging the freezing orders, which the claimants had kept in place while staying silent about the operation (paras 99–100, 105). The Court dismissed the appeal, allowed the cross-appeal only to the extent of discharging the freezing orders, and left the fraud claim to go to trial (para 110).

Why it matters

• Privilege hunting is an abuse of process — but not an automatic knockout. Deceiving an opponent’s solicitor into surrendering privileged material is a serious abuse, yet the Court refused to make strike-out the default response (paras 82, 91–93).
• The court’s response can bite on interim relief. Discharging the claimants’ freezing orders — not merely a costs order — was the proportionate answer: a party committing a serious abuse should not keep a discretionary remedy it obtained while hiding that abuse from the court (paras 102–106).
• Solicitors handling such material are on notice. In a postscript, Males LJ warned that a solicitor presented with the fruits of such an operation must consider not only their professional responsibilities but the possibility that using the material could encourage, or assist a client to benefit from, the commission of criminal offences (para 112).

Read the full judgment: Salinas Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 940 (The National Archives).