header-logo header-logo

Privilege

15 October 2010
Issue: 7437 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

BBGP Managing General Partner Ltd and others v Babcock & Brown Global partners [2010] EWHC 2176 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 42 (Oct)

(i) Where a solicitor accepted a joint retainer from parties with potentially conflicting interests one client could insist as against the other that legal professional privilege attached to any of what passes between the solicitor and that client during the currency and in the course of the retainer. In order for joint privilege to arise the joint interest had to exist at the time that the communication came into existence. If the parties subsequently fell out and sued one another, neither of them could claim privilege as against the other in respect of any documents that were caught by the joint privilege, as the original joint interest was not destroyed by a subsequent disagreement between the parties.

Privilege could not be asserted as between partners in relation to any documents concerning the partnership’s affairs.

(ii) The iniquity principle that advice sought or given for the purpose of effecting iniquity was not privileged was founded upon public

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll