header-logo header-logo

13 October 2011 / David Burrows
Issue: 7485 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Tidal waive: a reply

David Burrows emphasises that legal professional privilege is a “substantive absolute right”

It may be helpful to elaborate on a couple of points which arise from Ed Heaton’s article, Tidal waive, which concerned circumstances in which a client may waive privilege unintentionally (NLJ, 2 September 2011, p 1169). Ed Heaton considers this subject in the light of Re D (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 684, [2011] All ER (D) 83 (Jun) where a mother in care proceedings had, by referring to part of the documents and notes which arose from an interview with her lawyers, impliedly waived privilege in respect of the rest.

Starting point

The starting point for any assessment of legal professional privilege (as Ward LJ makes clear at para [12] of Re D) is that it is a “substantive absolute right”: “There was no dispute that conferences between a client and counsel and meetings between a client and his solicitors are confidential and as such attract legal professional privilege. This confers on the client a substantive absolute right

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll