‘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
‘A case of freedom of the press versus counter-terrorism laws? Peter Carter QC at Doughty Street Chambers, examines the police powers used to seize an investigative journalist’s laptop.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 27th November 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’
Nearly Legal, 21st November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Responding to the publication of the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: “The ‘double lock’ requirement of needing both judicial and senior ministerial authorisation for the most intrusive investigatory powers is not as secure as it is made out to be.” ‘
The Bar Council, 5th November 2015
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
‘The statutory protection of legally privileged communications between lawyers and their clients should be high on the agenda when Parliament debates major new surveillance legislation next month. The Bar Council and The Law Society have called for legal professional privilege to receive statutory protection in the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill.’
The Bar Council, 22nd October 2015
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
‘It is common practice for an unscrupulous claimant, to run a doubtful personal injury claim to the door of the court, hoping to force a settlement, and then, at the last minute, to discontinue, in order to avoid the risk of failure, a finding of fundamental dishonesty and a costs liability.’
Park Square Barrister, 18th September 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Prisoners’ confidential legal letters to and from their lawyers and the courts have been wrongly opened by prison staff in half of cases investigated by the prisons ombudsman in the past year.’
The Guardian, 29th September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘An intriguing summary has emerged on Lawtel (subscription required) of a decision of the Chancery Division (John Jarvis QC) in a case called Hallows v Wilson Barca LLP, which suggests that the duties imposed on public bodies by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) can be relevant to the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2020