header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

The expert’s secret?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
27 May 2022 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7980 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail
82784
Legal privilege: with rights come responsibilities, as Mark Solon explains
  • A look at the two main types of legal privilege: legal advice privilege & litigation privilege.
  • Recent cases where legal privilege has been disputed.

Legal privilege is an important legal right but, as with any right, there are responsibilities. There are rules to be followed before privilege applies and not all communications between lawyers and experts will be protected to allow the communications to remain secret. The case of Kyla Shipping Co. Ltd v Freight Trading Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 376 (Comm) has some useful guidance.

There are two main types of privilege: legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, each with its own rules. Legal advice privilege, that is confidential communications between lawyers and clients for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice, was not in dispute.

Litigation privilege protects confidential written or oral communications between lawyers, their clients and third parties—in this case an expert witness. The privilege includes documents created by or on behalf of the lawyer

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
Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur under scrutiny
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
NLJ this week: Does dishonesty always mean strike-off?
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
NLJ this week: Potanin, prenups & privacy
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
NLJ this week: Malaysia’s arbitration overhaul
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
NLJ this week: Greed but no fraud in £1.4bn SKAT case
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll