RBS Rights Issue Litigation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not c...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page RBS Rights Issue Litigation - Case Note to RBS Rights Issue Litigation) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not covered by [[legal advice privilege]], as the employees in question did not form part of the | {{cn}}High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not covered by [[legal advice privilege]], as the employees in question did not form part of the “client” for {{tag|privilege}} purposes | ||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
*{{casenote|SFO|ENRC}} | *{{casenote|SFO|ENRC}} | ||
*{{ | *{{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} | ||
*[[privilege]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:21, 19 December 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not covered by legal advice privilege, as the employees in question did not form part of the “client” for privilege purposes