header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 October 2025 / James Harrison , Jenna Coad
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Features , Dispute resolution , Company , Privilege , Disclosure
printer mail-detail

The emperor has no clothes

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
232364
James Harrison & Jenna Coad on how the Privy Council undressed the shareholder rule
  • The ‘shareholder rule’ (that a company cannot assert privilege against its own shareholders) is unjustified and should have no place under English law, according to the Privy Council in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments.
  • In a crucial decision for shareholders and companies, the judgment concludes that companies need to retain privilege in their legal advice against their shareholders as much as the rest of the world.

In Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Limited and others No 2 (Bermuda) [2025] UKPC 34, the Privy Council likened the historic justification for the so-called ‘shareholder rule’ to the emperor wearing no clothes, finding that it was now time to ‘recognise and declare that the Rule is altogether unclothed’. Have legal doctrine and literary folktales ever met with such flourish? Perhaps not, although the board’s analogy did more than merely entertain—it revealed the truth behind the collective illusion that the shareholder

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