header-logo header-logo

11 September 2008 / Jamie Maples
Issue: 7336 / Categories: Opinion , Profession
printer mail-detail

Playing the privilege card

Jamie Maples considers the power of the court to “go behind” affidavits in support of privilege claims

In a recent decision in proceedings arising from the explosion and fi re at the Buncefield oil terminal in December 2005, West London Pipeline & Storage Ltd v Total UK Ltd and others [2008] EWHC 1729 (Comm), [2008] All ER (D) 294 (Jul), Mr Justice Beatson has given guidance on the making of claims to litigation privilege and on the jurisdiction of the court to “go behind” affidavits in support of such claims. The decision is also relevant to the drafting of internal policies concerning the conduct of investigations by companies, in the wake of major incidents like the Buncefield explosion, and to the status of documents produced in the course of such investigations in any subsequent legal proceedings.

Specific disclosure
The judgment concerned an application by TAV Engineering Ltd (TAV), a third party to the proceedings, for specific disclosure of certain documents in the possession of two of the defendants, Total UK Ltd and Total Downstream

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll