header-logo header-logo

Legal professional privilege

22 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll