Legal professional privilege in England and Wales

Last updated

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client (not to the lawyer) and so may only be waived by the client.

Contents

The majority of English civil cases are subject to the rules of standard disclosure, which are set out by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (the CPR) Rule 31.6. [1] A party makes disclosure of a document by stating that the document exists or has existed. [2]

The right to inspect documents in English civil procedure is governed by CPR Part 31.15. Upon written notice, the party to whom a document has been disclosed has the right to inspect that document (if such inspection would be proportionate given the nature of the case) except where the party making disclosure has the right to withhold inspection.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) requires solicitors (and accountants, insolvency practitioners, etc.) who suspect their clients of money laundering (in effect any handling or involvement with any proceeds of any crime, or monies or assets representing the proceeds of crime, can be a money laundering offence in English law) to report them to the authorities without telling the clients they have done so, subject to a maximum punishment of 5 years in jail. [3] However, the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2005 that PoCA does not override legal professional privilege. [4]

Legal professional privilege is the principal reason why inspection of documents is refused, and is regarded as a fundamental principle of justice. It is an exception to the general cards on the table outlook of the CPR. Privilege discloses a substantive right to keep privileged material confidential not only in the context of litigation, but generally. [5] Privilege extends beyond a mere evidential rule, and has been regarded as a fundamental principle of justice:

The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence will never be revealed without his consent. Legal profession privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests. [6]

It is a fundamental human right recognised by the English common law, and by the European Court of Human Rights, which has held it to be part of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. [7]

Privilege is absolute, in the sense that once it is established, it may not be weighed against any other countervailing public interest factor, [8] but may only be overridden expressly by statute.

There are two forms of legal professional privilege:

General requirements for privilege

To be regarded as privileged, the communications must be confidential. Communications between a client and his solicitor which the client instructed his solicitor to repeat to the other party are not privileged, because such communications are not confidential. [9] It is necessary that the solicitor or barrister be consulted professionally and not in any other capacity.

Privilege does not extend to facts communicated by the solicitor to the client which cannot be the subject of a confidential communication, even though such facts have a relation to the client's case. [10]

For legal advice privilege to apply, the communications in question must be between a professional legal adviser and their client with the sole or dominant purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice. [11] The Court of Appeal judgement in Three Rivers No. 5, regarding the narrow construction of 'client' in the case of corporate clients, was not appealed and remains good, if controversial, law in England and Wales. In this case a group of employees of the corporate client had the specific delegated authority to seek and receive legal advice on behalf of the corporate client. Communications not exclusively between those specific individuals with delegated authority and the legal advisers, was not covered by legal advice privilege, even where the dominant purpose of these secondary communications was for receiving legal advice. The status of communications between individuals all with jointly delegated authority to seek and receive legal advice has yet to be tested, it may be that the "dominant purpose" test would apply to such internal communications between individuals jointly identified as the "client".

Legal advice privilege extends to advice from salaried (in-house) legal advisers employed by government departments or commercial companies as much as from barristers and solicitors in private practice. [12] The law does not regard the position of these employed legal advisors as being different from those in private practice:

They are, no doubt, servants or agents of the employer. For that reason [the first-instance judge] thought they were in a different position from other legal advisers who are in private practice. I do not think this is correct. They are regarded by the law as in every respect in the same position as those who practice on their own account. The only difference is that they act for one client only, and not for several clients. They must uphold the same standards of honour and etiquette. They are subject to the same duties to their client and to the court. They must respect the same confidences. They and their clients have the same privileges. ... I speak, of course [only] of their communications in the capacity of legal advisers.

—  Lord Denning [13]

Legal advice privilege also applies to communications with foreign lawyers, where the necessary relationship of lawyer and client exists. [14] It does not extend to advisors who are not legally qualified [15] or to communications with members of other professions. [16]

All statements made at joint consultations between parties and their respective solicitors and counsel, even though made by one party to the solicitor or counsel of the other party, are privileged. So are communications made in a professional capacity for the purpose of giving or receiving professional advice, including information received by a solicitor in a professional capacity from a third party and communicated to the client. [17]

The test for legal advice privilege is to establish whether the communication in question was made confidentially for the purpose of legal advice – construing such purposes broadly. [18] That breadth was emphasized by the House of Lords, which has stated that the policy justification for legal advice privilege rests not simply on the right of the individual to obtain confidential legal advice, but also on the public interest in the observance of law and the administration of justice. [19] The House therefore decided that legal advice privilege was to be given the scope commensurate with these wide policy considerations. To achieve this end, legal advice could not be narrowly construed to be limited to advice on the client's legal rights and liabilities. It would be broadly construed, to include advice as to what should prudently and sensibly be done in the relevant legal context. Where there was doubt about the relevant legal context, the court should ask (a) whether the advice related to the rights, liabilities, obligations or remedies of the client under either private or public law; and, if so, (b) whether the communication fell within the policy justification for the privilege.

Requirements for litigation privilege

In contrast to legal advice privilege (where the relevant category of communications is broadly-construed), for litigation privilege to apply, communications to and from a professional legal adviser or third party (or between them) must take place in the context of, and for the sole or dominant purpose of, actual or contemplated litigation. [20] The litigation must be adversarial in nature (as opposed to inquisitorial or investigative). [21] However, litigation privilege does not extend to cover documents obtained for the purpose of litigation if they came into existence before litigation was contemplated. [22]

Communication not only with legal advisers but with other agents for the purpose of existing litigation or litigation then in contemplation are privileged if the document comes into existence at the request or on behalf of the legal advisor or for the purpose of obtaining his advice or to enable him to prosecute the litigation. [23]

Beneficiaries of litigation privilege

Litigation privilege is only engaged in the context of adversarial proceedings, which excludes investigative or inquisitorial proceedings, such as family law care proceedings. [24] For the purpose of legal advice privilege, the term client does not extend to documents produced by employees for the purpose of being sent to the client's solicitor. [25] [ clarification needed ]

Waiver of privilege

In both categories of privilege (legal advice privilege and litigation privilege) the privilege is that of the client, not of the lawyer or of the third party. Thus, only the client may waive privilege. [26]

Legal professional privilege may be waived unilaterally by the client. This should be contrasted with the privilege which attaches to without prejudice correspondence, which may not be waived without the consent of both parties. [27] A document in respect of which privilege is waived in one action cannot necessarily be used by the opposite party in a subsequent action between the same litigants unless the privilege is once again waived. [28]

The reading out of part of a document by counsel at trial, even without the client's express authority, amounts to a waiver of any privilege attaching to the document as a whole; [29] however, mere reference to a document does not amount to a waiver of privilege. [30] Following the rule of indivisibility of waiver, the disclosure of part of a letter pursuant to a general order for discovery constitutes a waiver of privilege in respect of the whole contents of the letter. [31]

Other parties and other proceedings

A third party is not in general entitled to rely on a defendant's privilege in relation to a document which came into existence for the purpose of enabling the defendant to obtain legal advice pending litigation unless there is some common interest between the defendant and the third party. However, there is an overriding principle that a defendant or potential defendant must be free to seek such evidence without being obliged to disclose the result of his finding to his opponent. Consequently, where a memorandum was prepared by a third party at the request of a potential defendant to enable him to obtain legal advice, the court would not order the third party to disclose the memorandum to the plaintiff, even though the third party was not at the time a potential defendant and was in effect sheltering the defendant's privilege. [32]

The court may not order disclosure of documents held by solicitors on behalf of clients who are not parties to the action if neither the solicitors nor the clients were involved in any relevant wrongdoing. [33]

Legal advice tendered to a party, and thus privileged in the hands of that party, may nevertheless be discoverable to another party which has a common interest with the party holding the documents such that the party claiming discovery falls within the ambit of the confidence subject to which the advice was tendered. [34]

Fraud nullifies privilege

Confidential communications between a client and his legal adviser are not privileged if made for the purpose of committing a fraud or crime. [35] For these purposes, it is irrelevant whether the fraud is that of the client, the adviser or a third party acting through an innocent client. [36] Fraud in this context is a wide concept extending to iniquity, which embraces, for example, a plan to enter into transactions at an undervalue to prejudice the client's creditors. [37] However, disclosure of such documents in such circumstances will only be ordered by a court if a particularly strong prima facie case of fraud is shown. [38]

Tax advice

Lawyers are protected by professional privilege from having to disclose advice that they may provide on clients' tax matters. In contrast, and unlike their American counterparts, British accountants do not enjoy such privilege, and are under general obligations to make disclosures to HM Revenue and Customs. The Chairman of HMRC in February 2010 criticised lawyers who exploited this difference to compete with accountants for clients, saying that he would crush any instances of law firms saying "bring your tax issues to us so we can ensure that HMRC can never get access to them". [39]

In July 2010, the legal professional privilege was the subject of a Court of Appeal case, in which Prudential plc claimed that it should not have to disclose tax advice received from accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers. [40] The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) intervened in support of change, but the court's judgment in October rejected the extension of privilege to professions other than law. [41]

See also

Related Research Articles

A subpoena or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoenas:

  1. subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.
  2. subpoena duces tecum orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

Confidentiality involves a set of rules or a promise usually executed through confidentiality agreements that limits the access or places restrictions on certain types of information.

In camera is a legal term that means in private. The same meaning is sometimes expressed in the English equivalent: in chambers. Generally, in-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process. In-camera is the opposite of trial in open court where all parties and witnesses testify in a public courtroom, and attorneys publicly present their arguments to the trier of fact.

In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. A collective settlement is a settlement of multiple similar legal cases. The term also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.

Accountant–client privilege is a confidentiality privilege, or more precisely, a group of privileges, available in American federal and state law. Accountant–client privileges may be classified in two categories: evidentiary privileges and non-evidentiary privileges.

In the common law, spousal privilege is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges that apply to spouses: the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege.

In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.

The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, pastor–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege, is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications between clergy and members of their congregation. This rule recognises certain communication as privileged and not subject to otherwise obligatory disclosure; for example, this often applies to communications between lawyers and clients. In many jurisdictions certain communications between a member of the clergy of some or all religious faiths and a person consulting them in confidence are privileged in law. In particular, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, among adherents of other Christian denominations, confess their sins to priests, who are unconditionally forbidden by Church canon law from making any disclosure, a position supported by the law of many countries, although in conflict with civil (secular) law in some jurisdictions. It is a distinct concept from that of confidentiality.

In common law jurisdictions, the duty of confidentiality obliges solicitors to respect the confidentiality of their clients' affairs. Information that solicitors obtain about their clients' affairs may be confidential, and must not be used for the benefit of persons not authorized by the client. Confidentiality is a prerequisite for legal professional privilege to hold.

<i>Solosky v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Solosky v R (1979), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on solicitor-client privilege. The court identified solicitor-client privilege as more than just a rule of evidence but as a fundamental right to all individuals.

In common law jurisdictions and some civil law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the work-product doctrine, which holds that information obtained or produced by or for attorneys in anticipation of litigation may be protected from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's decision in the case was unanimous.

<i>Descôteaux v Mierzwinski</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 SCR 860 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on solicitor-client privilege. The court reaffirmed the opinion in R. v. Solosky that privilege was a substantive right that even existed outside of a proceeding.

The doctrine of priest–penitent privilege does not appear to apply in English law. The orthodox view is that under the law of England and Wales privileged communication exists only in the context of legal advice obtained from a professional adviser. A statement of the law on priest–penitent privilege is contained in the nineteenth century case of Wheeler v. Le Marchant:

In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. ... There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. ... Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected.

In Australia, legal professional privilege is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding.

The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge kept secret the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr.

The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of attorney–client privilege. Under “common interest” or “joint defense” doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against a common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege. Because the joint defense, "privilege sometimes may apply outside the context of actual litigation, what the parties call a ‘joint defense’ privilege is more aptly termed the ‘common interest’ rule.”

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence Act 2006</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

References

  1. ↑ CPR 31.6: "Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only: (a) the documents upon which he relies; and (b) the documents which (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party's case; or (iii) support another party's case; and (c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction."
  2. ↑ CPR 31.3
  3. ↑ Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, sections 330 & 334(2)
  4. ↑ Bowman v Fels [2005]
  5. ↑ R (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co.) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2003] 1 AC 563
  6. ↑ R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B [1996] AC 487, quoted with approval in R (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax, para 10. The former case gives a vivid and succinct history of the concept of privilege in English common law.
  7. ↑ Campbell v United Kingdom [1992] 15 EHRR 137, which stated at p. 160, para. 46: "It is clearly in the general interest that any person who wishes to consult a lawyer should be free to do so under conditions which favour full and uninhibited discussion. It is for this reason that the lawyer-client relationship is, in principle, privileged." The Court decided that the routine opening of correspondence flowing between a secure category prisoner and his solicitor by the prison authorities violated the prisoner's Article 8 rights.
  8. ↑ R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B [1996] AC 487. Lord Nicholls (at p. 512) rejected the submission that a court should carry out a balancing exercise: "In the absence of principled answers to these questions [of how in practice to balance out differing demands regarding the right to justice and the right to non-incrimination, for instance], and I can see none, there is no escaping the conclusion that the prospect of a judicial balancing exercise in this field is illusory, a veritable will-o'-the-wisp. That in itself is a sufficient reason for not departing from the established law."
  9. ↑ Conlon v Conlons Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 462, CA
  10. ↑ Foakes v Webb [1884] 28 Ch. D 287. Kay J. drew the following example: "The fact that the solicitor was the person who signed a letter to the other side cannot be a confidential communication. Suppose the solicitor himself were asked that question in the witness box; he could not claim privilege and would be obliged to answer."
  11. ↑ Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5) [2004] 3 WLR 1274. Lord Scott (at p. 1,287) highlighted the necessity of a legal context for the communication: "If a solicitor becomes the client's 'man of business', and some solicitors do, responsible for advising the client on all matters of business, including investment policy, finance policy and other business matters, the advice may lack a relevant legal context ... In cases of doubt the judge ... should ask whether the advice related to the rights, liabilities, obligations or remedies of the client, either under private law or under public law. If it does not, then, in my opinion, legal advice privilege would not apply."
  12. ↑ Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 102.
  13. ↑ Ibid., at page 129.
  14. ↑ Re Duncan, Garfield v Fay [1968] P 306. In this case, Ormrod J (as he then was) stated (at p.311): "There is nothing [in the previous case law concerning privilege] to suggest that [the judges] intended to limit the rule to legal advisers whose names appear on the roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court or who are members of the English Bar. The basis of the privilege is just as apt to cover foreign legal advisers as English lawyers, provided only that the relationship of lawyer and client subsists between them. Any other conclusion would lead to an impossible position for if this court were required to investigate the position of such communications in foreign law, but what law governs the relationship of English client and foreign lawyer, at any rate, when no proceedings are in contemplation? There is no forum and therefore no lex fori . The nationality of the foreign lawyer is as irrelevant as his address for this purpose."
  15. ↑ "Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mackay & Anor[2012] EWHC 649 (TCC) at para 17". BAILII. March 15, 2012. Retrieved August 25, 2019. The protection of privilege is not intended to extend to the relationship between a person and another who is not in fact a qualifies and practising lawyer, save in exceptional circumstances like those which arose in the Calley case, which is completely different from the current case: here, the Defendants had no good reason to believe that they were employing solicitors or barristers because they were employing Knowles which does not profess to be offering the services of qualified practising solicitors and barristers.
  16. ↑ Slade v Tucker [1880] 14 Ch. D 824.
  17. ↑ Re Sarah C Getty Trust, Getty v Getty [1985] QB 956. Here, Mervyn Davies J. stated (at 965): "I see no ground for ... allowing a solicitor to be questioned about what it is he may have received in a professional capacity from a third party. On the contrary, I think that to breach the blanket of privilege in the way suggested would erode to an unacceptable degree the wholesome protection that has been provided by the law for the reasons explained by Lord Brougham in Greenhough v Gaskell [1833]".
  18. ↑ Belabel v Air India [1988] Ch. 317. Here, Taylor LJ (at pp. 329–330), noting a historical divergence in the authorities regarding the scope of such privilege, stated that it was important therefore to return to the principle underlying the rule, and concluded: the purpose and scope of the privilege is still to enable legal advice to be sought and given in confidence. In my judgment, therefore, the test is whether the communication or other document was made confidentially for the purposes of legal advice. Those purposes have to be construed broadly." The judge regarded construing the rule as applying only to communications specifically seeking or conveying advice as too narrow, preferring the following scope (p. 332): "Once solicitors are embarked on a ... transaction they are employed to ensure that the client steers clear of legal difficulties, and communications passing in the handling of that transaction are privileged (if their aim is the obtaining of appropriate legal advice) since the whole handling is experience and legal skill in action and a document uttered during the transaction does not have to incorporate a specific piece of legal advice to obtain that privilege."
  19. ↑ In Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5) [2004] 3 WLR 1274.
  20. ↑ Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521. In this matter, Lord Wilberforce stated (at 532): "If one accepts that this important public interest [the interest in due administration of justice and disclosure] can be overridden in order that the defendant may properly prepare his case [i.e., for litigation privilege], how close must the connection be between the preparation of the document and the anticipation of litigation? On principle I would think that the purpose of preparing for litigation ought to be either the sole purpose or at least the dominant purpose of it: to carry the protection further into cases where that purpose was secondary or equal with another purpose would seem to be excessive, and unnecessary in the interest of encouraging truthful revelation. At the lowest such desirability of protection as might exist in such cases is not strong enough to outweigh the need for all relevant documents to be made available."
  21. ↑ Re L (minors) (police investigation: privilege) [1997] AC 16. Lord Jauncey quoted with approval Lord Simon in Waugh (above, at p. 536): "The system of adversary forensic procedure with legal professional advice and representation demands that communications between lawyer and client should be confidential, since the lawyer is for the purpose of litigation merely the client's alter ego. So too material which is to go into the lawyers's (i.e. the client's) brief or file for litigation. This is the basis for the privilege against disclosure of material collected by or on behalf of a client for the use of his lawyer in pending or anticipated litigation". In Re L, the contemplated legal proceedings were family law care proceedings, which were not to be regarded as adversarial in nature, not being based upon the rights of the parents, but focused on a determination of the future of a child.
  22. ↑ Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 3 All ER 472. Lord Bingham said (at p. 612): "The courts must not in any way encroach on the right of a litigant or potential litigant to seek and obtain legal advice on his prospects and the conduct of proceedings under the seal of confidence nor on the right of such a litigant and his legal adviser to prepare for and conduct his case without, directly or indirectly, revealing the effect of that advice. ... But it is hard to see how these rights are infringed if a party is obliged to produce an original document which was in existence before litigation was in the air, and which a litigant or his legal adviser have obtained from a third party for the purposes of the litigation, but which the third party could himself be compelled to produce at the trial without any possible ground for objection."
  23. ↑ Anderson v Bank of British Columbia [1876] 2 Ch. D 644.
  24. ↑ Re L (minors) (police investigation: privilege) [1997] AC 16.
  25. ↑ USP Strategies plc v London General Holdings Ltd [2004] EWHC 373 (Ch.)
  26. ↑ Anderson v Bank of British Columbia [1876] 2 Ch. D 644.
  27. ↑ Walker v Wilsher [1889] 23 QBD 335, CA. The meaning of without prejudice is not defined in the CPR itself, and so carries the meaning attached to it through case law. In Walker, Lindley LJ stated that the words without prejudice mean "without prejudice to the writer of the letter if the terms he proposes are not accepted". If an item of correspondence is marked without prejudice, then without any other qualifying words in that document, then the addressee of the letter and the sender will not be entitled to refer to the document in the context of litigation. The rule applies not only to correspondence (of whatever form) but also to communications of any description which either are expressed to be or which by implication take place in a without prejudice situation. Clearly, the without prejudice rule is not dependent on the use of those word. Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 at 1299 stated: "The rule applies to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence. A competent solicitor will always head any negotiating correspondence without prejudice to make clear beyond doubt that in the event of the negotiations being unsuccessful they are not to be referred to at the subsequent trial. However, the application of the rule is not dependent upon the use of the phrase without prejudice and if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the parties were seeking to compromise the action, evidence of the content of those negotiations will, as a general rule, not be admissible at the trial and cannot be used to establish an admission or partial admission ... the question has to be looked at more broadly and resolved by balancing two different public interests namely the public interest in promoting settlements and the public interest in full discovery between parties to litigation."
  28. ↑ Dinham v British Steel Corporation [1986] CLY 115.
  29. ↑ Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co [1981] 2 All ER 485.
  30. ↑ Tate and Lyle International Ltd v Government Trading Corporation [1984] LS Gaz R 3341, CA.
  31. ↑ Pozzi v Eli Lilley & Co [1986] Times, 3 December.
  32. ↑ Lee v South West Thames Regional Health Authority [1985] 2 All ER 385.
  33. ↑ Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 6) [1991] Times, 22 April.
  34. ↑ Formic Ltd v Secretary of State acting by the Export Credits Guarantee Department [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 692.
  35. ↑ R v Cox and Railton [1884] 14 QBD 153.
  36. ↑ R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Francis & Francis [1989] AC 346, HL.
  37. ↑ Barclays Bank v Eustace [1995] 4 All ER 511, CA.
  38. ↑ Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 7) [1990] 3 All ER 161.
  39. ↑ HMRC on warpath with law firm over 'secret' tax advice Archived 2010-02-20 at the Wayback Machine , Accountancy Age, 11 February 2010
  40. ↑ Court battle rages over legal privilege for tax advisers Archived 2010-07-24 at the Wayback Machine , Accountancy Age, 22 July 2010
  41. ↑ "ICAEW: Legal privilege rules 'unsustainable'", Accountancy Age, 13 October 2010
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.