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

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

6 bytes removed , 22 January 2018

no edit summary

82,891

edits

Revision as of 16:39, 25 August 2017 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 10:11, 22 January 2018 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
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.		{{cite\|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 [[RBS Rights Issue Litigation - Case Note\|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 [[RBS Rights Issue Litigation - Case Note\|RBS Rights Issue Litigation]]