‘It’s fair to say that the Supreme Court’s Brexit judgment has taken some attention from other legal developments of the day, but Holyoake v (1) Candy (2) CPC Group Limited [2017] EWHC 52 is another significant judgment on the scope of the subject access right under s.7 DPA.’
Panopticon, 25th January 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Everyone knows that the privilege of communications between client and lawyer is a fundamental principle of English Common Law. But there has been some uncertainty as to what happens if the privilege is waived for the purpose of some litigation. That, it seems to me, is clearly dealt with by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd v Dechert LLP [2016] 1WLR 5027.’
Zenith PI blog, 3rd January 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld an injunction that international law firm Dechert has to cease acting for the principal creditor of a Russian businessman because it is also acting for his trustees in bankruptcy and has access to thousands of documents that are covered by legal professional privilege.’
Litigation Futures, 21st November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘Madeleine Reardon, barrister of 1 King’s Bench Walk, considers the role of mediation in the course of family proceedings, practical issues arising therefrom and, in particular, confidentiality of the mediation process.’
Family Law Week, 27th October 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Wasted costs orders can only be made against a representative, whereas non-party costs orders can be made against anyone, including a representative.’
New Law Journal, 20th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘John Tughan QC, 4 Paper Buildings, reviews recent decisions relevant to public children lawyers, including two important recent decisions of the Court of Appeal.’
Family Law Week, 11th August 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Distinguished legal figures on the red benches lined up to condemn threats to professional privilege posed by the government’s investigatory powers bill as it passed its second reading in the House of Lords this week.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 29th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Sometimes the most fundamental principles can be most vulnerable to attack and/or erosion. As the government strives to tackle the threat posed by those who seek to undermine our democratic values in the context of an increasingly digital age, legal professional privilege (LPP) is in danger of becoming just that kind of principle.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 28th June 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The High Court has ordered international law firm Dechert to cease acting for the principal creditor of a Russian businessman because it is also acting for his trustees in bankruptcy and has access to thousands of documents that are covered by legal professional privilege.’
Litigation Futures, 9th May 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to conduct a solicitor-own client assessment in private so as to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), even though the client had given a waiver to enable international law firm Dechert to defend its multi-million pound bills.’
Litigation Futures, 20th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘PowerPoint slides prepared by external counsel for training at the Ministry of Justice were subject to legal professional privilege and did not have to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 7th April 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Ltd v Typhoo Tea Ltd [2016] EWHC 486 (Comm)
‘The claimant was a commercial agent who acted for the defendant. The agency agreement between the parties provided for 12 months’ notice of termination. The claimant’s case was that, by e-mails dated 18 and 26 March 2013, the defendant gave notice of termination with effect from 11 February 2013, to terminate on 11 May 2013 and was thereby in repudiatory breach of contract, which repudiation the claimant accepted as bringing the agency agreement to an end. The claimant brought a claim for, inter alia, damages for termination with insufficient notice and sought to admit the defendant’s e-mails as evidence of the defendant’s repudiation. The defendant contended that the two e-mails, both marked “Without Prejudice”, were part of a series of without prejudice negotiations to settle a dispute as to termination of the agency and that, as such, they could not be relied on by the claimant as repudiatory and were inadmissible in evidence.’
WLR Daily, 8th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Despite claims that new surveillance laws will contain “protections for lawyers”, today’s Investigatory Powers Bill will allow authorities total access to confidential, legally privileged communications between individuals and their lawyers, even when someone is in a legal dispute with the Government or defending themselves against prosecution.’
The Bar Council, 2nd March 2016
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
‘The ‘without prejudice’ privilege refers to the inadmissibility of any party communications targeted toward settlement. The objective of this privilege is to encourage parties engaging in settlement consideration, by ensuring any information disclosed in the pursuit of settlement cannot be submitted in litigation proceedings (see Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tomkins v GLC [1989] 1 AC 1280).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th February 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Litigants in person (LiPs) can benefit from the ‘without prejudice’ rule even if they do not know what it means, the Court of Appeal has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 19th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A Manchester-based property developer cannot claim litigation privilege for secret recordings of meetings where witnesses were “deliberately deceived”, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 8th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 26 October 2015, the House of Lords debated the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. The Regulations were approved, but subject to two riders. Critics claimed that these riders constituted “fatal” amendments, and that they were therefore tantamount to a rejection of the legislation. It was argued that it is constitutionally improper for the House of Lords to reject financial legislation in this way.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th December 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024