header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 October 2010 / Mike Willis
Issue: 7439 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

It pays to be privileged

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Mike Willis considers whether lawyer-confined privilege is prudential

In the recent case of R (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] EWCA Civ 1094, [2010] All ER (D) 132 (Oct), the applicant taxpayers challenged Revenue notices requiring disclosure of certain documents containing tax-related legal and regulatory advice on grounds they are privileged, notwithstanding the advice came from accountants, not lawyers.

They argued there is no functional difference between a lawyer or an accountant giving such advice, because both are subject to professional controls and ethical duties, and it should not matter whether it comes from a law firm or some other professional provider. The Court of Appeal has rejected their case, with some principled explanation for why the doctrine always has been, and arguably should still be, applied exclusively to lawyers’ advice; but more dominantly because they were bound by existing case law so that, if the rules of privilege are to be changed, it has to be done by Parliament.

Tub-thumping

Campaigners for wider application

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll