Three Rivers No. 5: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
It has been criticised as creating a risk of restricting the "client" to some limited group of employees, so that communications or documents prepared by anyone else in the organisation would not be privileged, unless prepared for the purposes of contemplated litigation. That is because, unlike [[litigation privilege]], [[legal advice privilege]] does not apply to communications with third parties; it only covers lawyer-client communications. | It has been criticised as creating a risk of restricting the "client" to some limited group of employees, so that communications or documents prepared by anyone else in the organisation would not be privileged, unless prepared for the purposes of contemplated litigation. That is because, unlike [[litigation privilege]], [[legal advice privilege]] does not apply to communications with third parties; it only covers lawyer-client communications. | ||
Although followed in {{casenote1|RBS Rights Issue Litigation}}and | Although [[stare decisis|followed]] by the High Court in {{casenote1|RBS Rights Issue Litigation}} and (at first instance) in {{Casenote|Serious Fraud Office|Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation}}, {{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} is basically a dead man walking since the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision's decision in {{casenote|SFO|ENRC}} and more or less invited ENRC to appeal to the Supreme Court so they could overrule {{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 1}} for good measure. | ||
The [[inhouse cousel]] of the English [[common law]] world will not be sad to see it go. | The [[inhouse cousel]] of the English [[common law]] world will not be sad to see it go. | ||