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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll