header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Privilege
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk

235044
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'

That rule had allowed shareholders to inspect a company’s privileged legal advice in disputes with management. The Board declared it inconsistent with corporate personality—companies are separate legal entities, not trustees for shareholders. Attempts to reframe the rule as joint-interest privilege or a nuanced case-by-case doctrine were rejected as uncertain and unworkable.

The authors note that the decision restores clarity to legal professional privilege, removing a tactical weapon once used to pressure companies. For boards, it secures candid access to advice; for litigants, it ends a century-old anomaly. The judgment, binding in England and Wales, reshapes shareholder litigation strategy for years ahead.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll