header-logo header-logo

01 December 2017 / Mark Hall , Jan-Jaap Baer
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Legal advice privilege: a search for clarity?

nlj_7772_baer

Jan-Jaap Baer & Mark Hall review recent developments in the law of privilege

  • The current restrictive approach to privilege poses real challenges to lawyers when seeking to investigate issues raised by corporate clients without creating documents that will be subsequently disclosable to regulators or litigants.
  • Increasing difficulties in claiming privilege may make it harder to persuade employees to fully co-operate in investigations.

Since 2004 the leading authority on legal advice privilege has been the much criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers (No 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] QB 1556, which gave a restrictive interpretation as to who is the ‘client’ in the corporate context. Several recent court decisions have confirmed this narrow approach and may suggest a trend towards yet further erosion in the ability to claim both legal advice and litigation privilege.

Who is the client?

Legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications passing between a client and the client’s lawyer which have come into existence for the purpose of giving or receiving legal

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll