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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll