header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 November 2025 / Sophie Ashcroft , Miranda Joseph
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Features , Company , Privilege
printer mail-detail

Shaping the future of shareholder litigation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
235044
Sophie Ashcroft & Miranda Joseph discuss a landmark Privy Council judgment & its implications for legal professional privilege in corporate litigation
  • Explains the origins of the shareholder rule, the difficulties in its application, and the reasoning behind the court’s decision to abolish it.
  • Considers the implications of the judgment for companies and their advisers.

The Privy Council’s decision in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and others No 2 (Bermuda) [2025] UKPC 34 marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of legal professional privilege. In a judgment handed down on 24 July 2025, the board decisively rejected the long-standing shareholder rule: a doctrine that had allowed shareholders to access privileged legal advice obtained by a company. The board declared that it no longer forms part of the law of Bermuda, or of England and Wales.

Background to the dispute

The case arose from the 2021 amalgamation of Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd and JMH Bermuda Ltd, forming Jardine Strategic Ltd (the company). Shareholders

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll