Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation: Difference between revisions

Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (view source)

1 byte removed , 23 January 2018

no edit summary

83,209

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 The case considered the Court of Appeal’s controversial decision in {{Casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} of who constitutes the “client” when it comes to [[legal advice privilege]]; it  traversed similar ground to the {{casenote1|RBS Rights Issue Litigation}}.
-The court rejected all of ENRC’s claims to {{tag|privilege}}, holding that [[criminal litigation privilege]] only arises in limited circumstances, far more rarely than in a [[civil litigation privilege|civil litigation]]. The court found:
+The court rejected all of ENRC’s claims to {{tag|privilege}}, holding that ''criminal''  [[litigation privilege]] only arises in limited circumstances, far more rarely than in a [[litigation privilege|civil litigation]]. The court found:
 *an SFO raid and the processes it triggers (including an SFO investigation) are *not* adversarial litigation;
 *“reasonable anticipation” of an ''investigation'' did not amount to reasonable anticipation of ''litigation'';