A privileged position?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

15 February 2013 / Julian Copeman

Issue: 7548 / Categories: Features , Commercial

printer

mail-detail

Julian Copeman investigates the impact of the Prudential case on legal advice privilege

On 23 January 2013 in R (on the application of Prudential plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] UKSC 1 the Supreme Court confirmed by a majority of five to two that legal advice privilege (LAP) cannot be claimed in respect of confidential communications between accountants and their clients for the purpose of requesting or providing legal advice, but can be claimed only where such communications are between qualified solicitors, barristers or foreign lawyers (including in-house lawyers) and their clients.

Background

The case arose when HMRC gave formal notice to Prudential seeking production of documents relating to a tax avoidance scheme it had entered into. Prudential judicially reviewed the notices, arguing that they unlawfully required Prudential to disclose documents that were subject to LAP. In particular, Prudential asserted that documents by which it had sought or received legal advice on tax matters from its accountants were covered by LAP.

Prudential argued that LAP should be available for advice

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

A privileged position?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Julian Copeman investigates the impact of the Prudential case on legal advice privilege

On 23 January 2013 in R (on the application of Prudential plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] UKSC 1 the Supreme Court confirmed by a majority of five to two that legal advice privilege (LAP) cannot be claimed in respect of confidential communications between accountants and their clients for the purpose of requesting or providing legal advice, but can be claimed only where such communications are between qualified solicitors, barristers or foreign lawyers (including in-house lawyers) and their clients.

Background

The case arose when HMRC gave formal notice to Prudential seeking production of documents relating to a tax avoidance scheme it had entered into. Prudential judicially reviewed the notices, arguing that they unlawfully required Prudential to disclose documents that were subject to LAP. In particular, Prudential asserted that documents by which it had sought or received legal advice on tax matters from its accountants were covered by LAP.

Prudential argued that LAP should be available for advice

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS

Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned

NLJ this week: The insider returns

Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome

NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt

After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights

NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers

The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains

NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was

Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously

back-to-top-scroll