‘A law firm which provided written confirmation to a financing bank that it had had received instructions from its client did not automatically bring legal advice privilege to an end, and so need not provide the bank with other documents relating to a dispute between the lender and the client, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th January 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Legal advice privilege (LAP) only applies where documents were created with the “dominant purpose” of seeking or providing legal advice, appeal judges have ruled.’
Legal Futures, 29th January 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The last few years has seen a raft of higher court authority dealing with questions of the nature of the law of the various types of privilege when it comes to disclosure of documents. In the latest case, the Court of Appeal has held that confidentiality and privilege is not lost in respect of documents pertaining to client instructions simply because a solicitor makes a statement to a third party pursuant to those instructions.’
Hailsham Chambers, 23rd January 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘Do Defendants have a right to see unredacted settlement agreements which have privileged communications in them? The case of BGC Broker LP (above) addresses this.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 17th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The Claimant was employed as a Senior Legal Counsel by Shell until his dismissal, allegedly for redundancy, in January 2017. Whilst employed by Shell, he submitted a grievance and commenced an employment tribunal claim (“the First Claim”) for disability discrimination. In March 2017, he commenced a second ET claim (“the Second Claim). In broad terms, he alleged that Shell relied on a planned re-organisation of its in-house legal department as a pretext by which to terminate his employment by way of redundancy such that his dismissal was unfair, and that this was also unlawful discrimination and victimisation as a result of the First Claim and his grievance.’
3PB, 4th November 2019
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update, Christopher Badger considers a successful appeal for the disclosure of privileged instructions to Counsel under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the adoption of legislative reforms on sustainable finance and investments by the European Council and Greenpeace claims that the UK will miss environmental targets for 2020 and beyond.’
Six Pump Court, 19th November 2019
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Two recent cases have cast light on the issue of legal professional privilege in employment disputes.’
Littleton Chambers, 12th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The First-tier Tribunal has ordered Ryedale District Council to disclose the briefing question it sent to a Queen’s Counsel seeking advice on a motion in which councillors sought for competing retail planning applications to be ‘called in’.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st November 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600 (2 October 2019) provides a ringing endorsement of the rule ‘once privileged, always privileged’. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant solicitors had a duty to uphold the privilege of a former client even though the former client was a company which had been dissolved. The court also held that the solicitors had acted properly in appearing by counsel to argue that the privilege should be upheld, even though the privilege was not the solicitors’ own privilege, and they did not have instructions from the former client. William Flenley QC, leading Adam Kramer, appeared for the successful solicitors.’
Hailsham Chambers, 7th October 2019
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A former senior in-house lawyer at Shell cannot rely on a leaked internal email or an overheard pub conversation in his discrimination claim against the company, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 23rd October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Redacting comments made by a company’s lawyer on a draft dismissal letter while disclosing other privileged documents was “impermissible cherry picking”, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 15th October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘“Not very” seems to be the answer in the Court of Appeal decision in M (Children) [ 2019] EWCA Civ 1364 . Sir Andrew McFarlane upheld Keehan J’s decision to disclose the parents’ initial statement and position statement to the police following the initial interim care hearing. In family proceedings parents are advised that their evidence is confidential to those proceedings. They are encouraged to be open and frank and to understand that their children’s interests are the Court’s main concern. But something seems to be eroding these principles, a trend set since the case of Re H (Children) [2009] EWCA. The Court of appeal approved the test from Re C ( see below) and gave it the “fit for purpose” badge. The decision should be seen in the context of this being a police terrorism enquiry.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th August 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has backed international firm Taylor Wessing over its refusal to disclose privileged information to the beneficiary of a Bahamian trust. Taylor Wessing was acting for the trustee of the Glennfinnan Settlement when a beneficiary of the trust requested personal data about parties to litigation in the Bahamas.’
Law Society's Gazette, 23rd May 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In this article Richard Spearman QC discusses the issues raised in Winstone and Others v MGN Ltd [2019] EWHC (Ch) 265 in which he represented the defendant. The application arose in the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation, and concerned the extent to which materials subject to legal professional privilege remained susceptible to protection after they had been pleaded by claimants.’
39 Essex Chambers, 28th February 2019
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The president of the family division has rejected a wife’s application to admit the statement of a “whistleblower” inside her former husband’s legal team who sent the court privileged information.’
Legal Futures, 5th March 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A recent High Court case demonstrates that companies will usually need to carry out their own internal investigations before being able to successfully obtain certain court orders in cases of suspected employee fraud, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th January 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Internal investigations are increasingly being conducted by companies not only on regulatory grounds but also in response to employment issues such as whistleblowing and discrimination allegations. In SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006, the Court of Appeal has significantly widened the scope of legal professional privilege in the context of an internal company investigation. It will now be easier for the employer to assert privilege over employees’ witness statements and other documents generated in an investigation.’
Littleton Chambers, 26th November 2018
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The same issues often crop up across an array of regulatory work. Legal professional privilege is the most obvious example, with a number of high profile cases arising out of SFO investigations. A second example concerns the rights of third parties to prevent the publication of adverse comment about them in regulatory reports and decisions (‘Maxwellisation’). In this article, Jamie Smith QC and Helen Evans explain how these two issues have arisen in the context of disciplinary investigations and proceedings undertaken by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which plays an important role in the regulation of accountants.’
4 New Square, 11th December 2018
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘An auction house has failed to establish litigation privilege over correspondence with experts about whether or not a painting it sold was counterfeit, in a case brought by the seller of that painting.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th December 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025