header-logo header-logo

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

Privilege

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll