“Lawyers will learn tomorrow whether the confidential protection that attaches to their communication with clients can also be claimed by accountants. A Supreme Court ruling on the issue of legal professional privilege (LPP) is expected tomorrow.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A party that referred the court to a term of an offer made by it pursuant to CPR Pt 36 waived its without prejudice privilege and could not prevent the remaining terms of the offer from being referred to the court.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Watching the press conference by Greater Manchester Police, I was not the only journalist to remark that it looked and sounded more like one held by police in the USA where contempt laws hold no sway in the run-up to a trial. Here, as soon as someone is arrested, no one should publish anything which might cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice or serious impediment to the proceedings that might take place.”
The Guardian, 20th September 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Phillips v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another [2012] UKSC 28 ; [2012] WLR (D) 193
“The privilege against self-incrimination did not entitle a private investigator to refuse to comply with an order in civil proceedings requiring him to disclose the identity of those who had instructed him to intercept mobile phone voicemail messages containing confidential information of a commercial nature.”
WLR Daily, 4th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has called for the Government to amend further the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to protect civil liberties and open justice.”
The Bar Council, 4th April 2012
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
“A supermarket does not have to hand over notes from discussions with witnesses to the Office of Fair Trading as part of an ongoing legal dispute because the information was protected by ‘litigation privilege’, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 27th March 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has held that confidentiality under litigation privilege applies to Competition Act investigations, in a key ruling in the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT’s) long-running investigation into dairy retail pricing.”
Legal Week, 26th March 2012
Source: www.legalweek.com
“In a unanimous decision ([2012] UKSC 11) the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Times Newspapers Limited against a decision of the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 804) which had held that it could not rely on Reynolds qualified privilege. The Supreme Court restored the decision of Mr Justice Tugendhat ([2009] EWHC 2375 (QB)) who had ruled, on the hearing of a preliminary issue, that the Times was entitled to rely on the defence of Reynolds qualified privilege in relation to the printed publication of the article about the claimant.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd March 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11; [2012] WLR (D) 93
“A publisher was protected from liability for defamation when it published an article containing allegations of corruption against a named police officer, even though the allegations were subsequently held to be unfounded, if it could be shown that the issues raised in the article were matters of public interest and that at the time of publication it appeared to the publishers that there was a strong circumstantial case for believing the allegations to be true.”
WLR Daily, 21st March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The supreme court’s unanimous decision in Flood v Times Newspapers, handed down on Wednesday, gives some comfort to the media in what are otherwise gloomy times for journalists when the reputation of the news gathering and reporting trade, mid-Leveson inquiry, is hanging by a thread and the threat of statutory regulation looms large.”
The Guardian, 21st March 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Bar Council has urged the government to protect the right of citizens to hold private conversations with their lawyers. The call, supported the Law Society, comes as the proposed Protection of Freedoms Bill, intended to protect people from unwarranted state intrusion in their private lives, goes through parliament.”
Law Society’s Gazette. 9th February 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“The phrase ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’ within the definition of ‘intellectual property’ in section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was apt to embrace telephone voice messages said to have been intercepted by a private investigator on the telephones of individuals; and the effect of that finding was that the privilege against self-incrimination on which the interceptor might otherwise have relied was removed.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal today (1 February) dismissed Mr Glenn Mulcaire’s appeal against an order that he provide information to claimants in the phone hacking litigation. The Court (Lord Judge, Lord Neuberger and Maurice Kay LJ) unanimously upheld the rulings of Mann J and Vos J that, as a result of the operation of section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, Mr Mulcaire was not entitled to rely on his privilege against self-incrimination (‘PSI’).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st February 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Court of Appeal will next Wednesday (1 February) decide whether the private investigator at the centre of the News of the World (NoW) phone hacking scandal must disclose who instructed him to intercept voicemails.”
The Lawyer, 26th January 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“Judgement has been reserved over a private investigator’s appeal against two court orders that may force him to reveal who ordered him to hack phones.”
BBC News, 29th November 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Financial Services Authority has been urged to review its operating procedures after it was found to have acted unlawfully in its use of legally privileged material during an enforcement investigation.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 20th October 2011
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“In Flood v the Times, the supreme court has to consider questions of balance and the limits of editorial discretion.”
The Guardian, 17th October 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“This interesting decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (not linked to this post, for reasons I shall explain below) goes to the circumstances in which a public authority can refuse under environmental information rules to disclose legal advice received by it.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th August 2011
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024