82,891
edits
Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation: Difference between revisions
Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (view source)
Revision as of 16:36, 25 August 2017
, 25 August 2017no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{casenote|Serious Fraud Office|Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation}} [2017] EWHC 1017 was a civil claim brought by the SFO challenging ENRC’s claim to {{tag|privilege}} in respect of various documents created in anticipation of criminal investigation and while reporting to the SFO in a self-reporting process. | {{casenote|Serious Fraud Office|Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation}} [2017] EWHC 1017 was a civil claim brought by the SFO challenging ENRC’s claim to {{tag|privilege}} in respect of various documents created in anticipation of criminal investigation and while reporting to the SFO in a self-reporting process. | ||
The case considered the Court of Appeal’s controversial decision in {{Casenote|Three Rivers No. 5|}} of who constitutes the “client” when it comes to [[legal advice privilege]]; it traversed similar ground to the {{casenote|RBS Rights Issue Litigation}}. | The case considered the Court of Appeal’s controversial decision in {{Casenote|Three Rivers No. 5|}} of who constitutes the “client” when it comes to [[legal advice privilege]]; it traversed similar ground to the {{casenote|RBS Rights Issue Litigation|}}. | ||
The Judge 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. The court found: | The Judge 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. The court found: | ||