The Court of Appeal’s decision in Salinas Pliego & Anor v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 940 (21 July 2026) presents an important reminder of the need for ethics in civil litigation,  and the potential consequences of unethical behaviour.

The underlining dispute concerned an alleged complex muti million pound high profile fraud. In an attempt to gain a tactical advantage, the Claimants hired a private investigation firm, Black Cube, staffed by former Israeli intelligence officers that profiled and targeted a partner of the Defendant’s solicitors firm (known in the case as ‘X’). An operation, which involved the private investigator posing as a representative of a potential new client intending to instruct the firm, arranging multiple meetings with X and hosting an all expenses paid trip in Amsterdam. In the final meeting, X was encouraged to share privileged information, such as litigation strategy and weaknesses in his clients case. These conversations were secretly recorded and the recordings were given to the Claimants. The Claimants’ solicitors at the time refused to look at the recordings which resulted in the Claimants instructing new solicitors. The Claimants then made an application for summary judgment exhibiting the recordings. The Defendant applied to strike out the claim for abuse of process.

The Deputy High Court Judge had the difficult task of balancing the gravity and culpability of the claimants' behaviour which he described as ‘an affront to justice and inimical to the fundamental norms and values of civil litigation in this jurisdiction’ alongside the fact the claim had a decent prospect of success at trial. Although he held that the operation was an abuse of process, the Judge found that striking to the whole claim would be a disproportionate penalty. The Judge did, however, strike out the Claimant’s summary judgment application and order them to pay the Defendant’s costs on the basis that the Claimant should not benefit from its abuse of process.

The Claimant appealed arguing that there was no abuse of process and so should have been able to proceed with their summary judgment application and the Defendant cross appealed on the basis that the claim should have been struck out as this was the only appropriate sanction for an abuse of process. On appeal, Lord Justice Males stated he had ‘no doubt that the claimants abused the process of the court. It was a very serious abuse.’ The Court agreed with the Deputy High Court Judge that the application for summary judgment should not have succeeded and that this was an appropriate sanction for the abuse of process and that strike out application should fail and the matter should proceed to trial. However, the Court went further and held that a party should not benefit from discretionary remedies obtained where there has been an abuse of process and discharged the previously made freezing orders.

The Court was clear that they would not tolerate unfair litigation tactics and Lord Justice Males stated that tactics of this nature ‘should have no place in litigation in the courts of England and Wales’ and condemned the practice of ‘privilege hunting’. The Judgment provides a clear reminder that litigation must be conducted fairly and in line with the rules of civil procedure or parties may face practical consequences and/or sanctions.