header-logo header-logo

The extent of privilege

14 October 2019
Issue: 7859 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Legal services , Fraud
printer mail-detail
Legal advice privilege continues until and unless it is waived by the client or removed by statute, the Court of Appeal has held in a landmark case.

Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe [2019] EWCA Civ 1600 concerned negligence proceedings brought against Dentons by the investor in a scheme marketed by a Cypriot company that later dissolved. The company was advised by Salans, which has since been renamed Dentons Europe. The investor claimed the scheme was a fraud and sought disclosure of documents passed between Salans and the company, which were privileged at the time of communication. A court held that the privilege attached to the documents remains in place even though the company no longer exists.

On appeal, the investor reiterated its argument that privilege is a right solely for an identifiable client and the client’s successors in title. No third party was entitled to assert it. Where no legal person has a right to privilege, the right ceases to exist and the court cannot enforce it. Dentons argued that privilege continued unless waived by the client or overridden by statute.

Delivering his judgment, Lord Justice Lewison said: ‘The rationale for the privilege means that privilege comes into existence at the time when the person in question consults his lawyer. The client must be sure at the time when he consults his lawyer, that, without his consent, there are no circumstances under which the privileged communications will be disclosed without his consent.’

Lewison LJ said the investor’s arguments would amount to a ‘retrospective redrawing of the boundaries of legal advice privilege’. He clarified that his judgment referred only to legal advice privilege not litigation privilege.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll