High Court: Experts owe clients “fiduciary duty of loyalty” – Litigation Futures

Posted April 16th, 2020 in confidentiality, expert witnesses, fiduciary duty, news, privilege by sally

‘Expert witnesses owe a fiduciary obligation of loyalty to their client and it is not satisfied simply by putting in place measures to preserve confidentiality and privilege, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th April 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 11 – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The Appellant was a corporate and investment bank (the “Bank”). On 7 May 2015, it entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) as the seller of a 23.8% shareholding in an Indonesian company traded on the London Stock Exchange. The Respondent solicitors, (“Ashurst”), had acted for the First Defendant, the counterparty buyer under the Agreement (“ACE”).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 5th March 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Mirror’s in-house lawyers under phone-hacking scrutiny – Legal Futures

‘The High Court has rejected a bid to strike out the claim by various public figures that the legal department of MGN Group knew about phone hacking at the Daily Mirror.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 11th March 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

No special rules allowing regulators to override LPP – Legal Futures

Posted February 21st, 2020 in appeals, disclosure, documents, legal profession, news, privilege by sally

‘There are no special rules allowing regulators such as the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) to override the protection of legal professional privilege (LPP), the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 20th February 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Court of Appeal adopts dominant purpose test – Henderson Chambers

‘Copying in your lawyer or having them at a meeting, does not necessarily mean that legal advice privilege will apply – in a law-changing judgment, the Court of Appeal has adopted the dominant purpose test in relation to Legal Advice Privilege.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 30th January 2020

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Appeal court confirms ‘dominant purpose’ test for legal advice privilege – OUT-LAW.com

‘The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) could not claim legal advice privilege over email correspondence which was predominantly conducted for the purposes of seeking commercial views, rather than legal advice, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 4th February 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Important New Court of Appeal Decision on Legal Advice Privilege – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 4th, 2020 in disclosure, electronic mail, legal services, news, privilege by sally

‘The Court of Appeal decision on 28 January 2020 on legal advice privilege will be of significant interest to litigators and non-litigators alike. It will be particularly important for those responsible for disclosure reviews within litigation, and to organisations with in-house lawyers. Such was the significance of the issues at play that the Law Society sought, and was granted, leave to intervene in the appeal.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 29th January 2020

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Disclosing client instructions did not end confidentiality – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 30th, 2020 in confidentiality, disclosure, news, privilege, solicitors by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 29th January 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Legal advice must be “dominant purpose” for privilege to apply – Legal Futures

‘Legal advice privilege (LAP) only applies where documents were created with the “dominant purpose” of seeking or providing legal advice, appeal judges have ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 29th January 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Case Note: Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd (1) Ashurst LLP (2) [2020] EWCA Civ 11 – Hailsham

Posted January 28th, 2020 in chambers articles, confidentiality, disclosure, news, privilege, solicitors by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 23rd January 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Privileged Information and Settlement Agreements – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 17th January 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Legal advice privilege – 3PB

Posted December 4th, 2019 in admissibility, disability discrimination, evidence, news, privilege, redundancy by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

3PB, 4th November 2019

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Environmental Law News Update – Six Pump Court

Posted November 26th, 2019 in disclosure, environmental protection, freedom of information, news, privilege by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Six Pump Court, 19th November 2019

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

Legal Advice Privilege and Dismissal – Littleton Chambers

Posted November 19th, 2019 in admissibility, evidence, news, privilege, unfair dismissal by sally

‘Two recent cases have cast light on the issue of legal professional privilege in employment disputes.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 12th November 2019

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Tribunal orders council to disclose instructions sent to QC over motion for ‘call-in’ of planning applications – Local Government Lawyer

Posted November 4th, 2019 in disclosure, freedom of information, news, planning, privilege by sally

‘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’.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 1st November 2019

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600, 2 October 2019 – Hailsham Chambers

Posted October 29th, 2019 in disclosure, news, privilege, solicitors, third parties by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 7th October 2019

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

In-house lawyer cannot rely on leaked email for discrimination claim – Legal Futures

‘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.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 23rd October 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Redacting solicitor’s comments to client was “cherry picking” – Litigation Futures

Posted October 16th, 2019 in disclosure, employment tribunals, news, pregnancy, privilege, unfair dismissal by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 15th October 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Legal advice privilege “survives” company’s dissolution – Legal Futures

‘Legal advice privilege (LAP) attaching to communications between a company and its lawyers survives the dissolution of the company, even if the Crown has disclaimed all interest in its former property, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 7th October 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

The “long arm” of the police – how “confidential” are family proceedings? – UK Human Rights Blog

‘“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.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 7th August 2019

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com