This was an Application under Rule 5.13 to compel an adjusting firm to provide a witness transcript for use in legal proceedings. The Respondents opposed the Application based on litigation privilege. The transcript was an interview with a former employee, and the main issue was whether it fell under litigation privilege. The interview included a lawyer representing the CGL insurer, the director and manager of a roofing contractor, and an employee from an independent adjusting firm. The interviewee was a former employee of the subcontractor of the roofing contractor.

The case outcome depended on whether the interview could be considered as falling within common interest privilege. Applications Judge Prowse noted that the primary purpose of the interview was to assess coverage, and struggled to identify a significant common interest among the parties involved. The independent adjuster's argument indicated they were unaware of which party the lawyer represented during the interview, making it difficult to support the notion of common interest privilege. Ultimately, the Court determined that the transcript was not protected by litigation privilege.