header-logo header-logo

14 October 2019
Issue: 7859 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Legal services , Fraud
printer mail-detail

The extent of privilege

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll