‘Samuel Littlejohns, pupil at 1 Hare Court, examines whether the very fact that a party consulted a lawyer at a given time is privileged information, and the practical consequences of this for practitioners.’
Family Law Week, 27th March 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The government has refused to give an undertaking not to take advantage of any intercepted communications between a former detainee, who is suing the Ministry of Defence, and his lawyers.’
The Guardian, 30th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This paper covers key information rights cases in 2014. The breadth of issues covered below, from legal professional privilege, human rights to vexatious requests, demonstrates the overlap between information law and many other areas of public law. This paper is intended to provide guidance, even for those who are not steeped, day-to-day, in the workings of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), on the practical implications of these developments.’
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Overriding lawyer-client & confidential communications is incompatible with the rule of law, as Nicholas Griffin QC, Robert O’Sullivan QC & Gordon Nardell QC explain.’
New Law Journal, 27th February 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The regime under which UK intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6, have been monitoring conversations between lawyers and their clients for the past five years is unlawful, the British government has admitted.’
The Guardian, 18th February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected a non-compliant claimant’s plea to set aside a trial date but stopped short of effectively ending the claim altogether.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th January 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘MI6 has been forced to reveal documents detailing how it may access legally privileged communications between solicitors and their clients, even if the lawyers are suing the government.’
The Guardian, 13th January 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Without prejudice’ correspondence between law firms on the costs of a complex dispute between mosquito net manufacturers was protected by privilege and not admissible in court, the High Court has ruled in a case with combined costs of £4.6m.’
Full story
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th January 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not act unlawfully when it searched and removed files from a claims management company it was investigating, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 15th December 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The coverage of last week’s Court of Appeal’s decision in Belhadj & Or. v Straw & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1394 has thus far generated more political heat than legal light. When a claim involves the suit of named officials and former Ministers for their alleged role in the rendition of a major political figure in the new Libya and his family to face torture under the Gaddafi regime, this is perhaps understandable. In a week where the Government – in the context of this claim – has conceded that it must disclose certain of its policies on surveillance and legal professional privilege, it is unsurprising that the press has had little time to digest the detail of this judgment.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th November 2014
Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and another: [2014] EWHC 3322 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 424
‘Communications made at a time when there was no dispute could not, with retrospective effect, be made subject to the without prejudice privilege by subsequently rasing a dispute.
WLR Daily, 10th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A former legal director of Times Newspapers Ltd was guilty of “recklessly” rather than “knowingly” misleading the court in relation to litigation over revelations about the “NightJack” blogger, the High Court has ruled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 12th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Three City firms – Clyde & Co, Stephenson Harwood and Addleshaw Goddard – face a combined disclosure exercise which could last for months and cost £2.5m after a High Court ruling on legal professional privilege.’
Litigation Futures, 18th August 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov et al 8 August 2014, Popplewell J. What you say to your lawyers is truly confidential; no-one, not even a regulator or prosecutor can see it. This is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (which includes the right to access to lawyers). Well, that is the general rule. And this case reminds us that there is an exception to this – when the relationship between client and lawyer is affected by “iniquity”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th August 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘What you say to your lawyers is truly confidential; no-one, not even a regulator or prosecutor can see it. This is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (which includes the right to access to lawyers).’
Legal Week, 13th August 2014
Source: www.legalweek.com
‘The High Court has rejected a bid to force a law firm to disclose the identity of a former client who revealed confidential information in an anonymous blog.’
Legal Futures, 11th July 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A council has won an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal over its refusal to meet a freedom of information request for the disclosure of legal advice given to a consultant conducting an investigation on the authority’s behalf.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024