header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Legal professional privilege

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Behague v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] UKFTT 596 (TC), [2013] All ER (D) 120 (Nov)

A client engagement letter was a contract between the client and solicitor. The solicitor could not (and did not) give legal advice about the contract between himself and his client. In so far as the client engagement letter, therefore, set out the terms of the contract, it could not attract legal professional privilege (LPP) as the lawyer was not giving advice qua lawyer. However, all that depended on what the actual engagement letter said. If it went beyond setting out the terms on which the solicitor would act it might attract LPP at least in part. In particular, it was likely that an engagement letter would specify the particular matter or matters on which the solicitor was contracted to provide legal advice. LPP had to extend not only to the content of the legal advice but the fact that a person sought legal advice on any particular matter. Accordingly, to the extent that an engagement letter set out what the

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