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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll