header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025 / Sophie Ashcroft , Miranda Joseph
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Features , Company , Privilege
printer mail-detail

Shaping the future of shareholder litigation

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll