‘The High Court has ruled that legal professional privilege was waived by the liquidators of a company when they released a set of documents to a litigant to help her sue her law firm for negligence.’
Legal Futures, 9th February 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Email attachments are not to be covered by legal professional privilege even if the email is, the Supreme Court effectively decided this week.’
Law Society's Gazette, 21st January 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has refused to interfere in a ruling that legal professional privilege (LPP) which covers an email does not extend to any attachments.’
Legal Futures, 21st January 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Henry Clayton, barrister of 4PB, considers the circumstances in which documents which purport to be privileged are, in fact, admissible.’
Family Law Week, 14th January 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘LPP has been described as “a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests” (R v Derby Magistrates’ Court, Ex p B [1996] AC 487, 507). In the last few years there has been a significant amount of litigation relating to documents subject to LPP (see for instance Sports Direct International plc v Financial Reporting Council [2020] EWCA Civ 177 and Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600). This is perhaps not surprising given how valuable and sensitive such documents will be in any litigation or investigation by a regulator. Each of these cases tests the boundaries of LPP. The recent decision of Tom Leech QC sitting as a judge of the High Court in Barrowfen is one such decision and particularly important for those who advise directors or are bringing or defending a claim against directors. Barrowfen is an important decision on the iniquity exception in the context of allegations of breaches by a director of his statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006.’
Exchange Chambers, 4th January 2021
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Parliament could soon be given legal powers to summon reluctant witnesses such as Dominic Cummings and Rupert Murdoch to answer questions from MPs, according to the chair of a Commons committee.’
The Guardian, 28th October 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Legal advice privilege extends to communications with foreign lawyers working in-house even if they are not recognised or regulated as “professional lawyers”, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 14th September 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A claim that a solicitor who is also a doctor provided dishonest advice to his clients can be subject to the General Medical Council’s (GMC) disciplinary process, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 15th June 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 16th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th March 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 11th March 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 20th February 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
Henderson Chambers, 30th January 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th February 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘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.’
Littleton Chambers, 29th January 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2021