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 10:16, 22 January 2018
, 22 January 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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. | {{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 {{Casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} of who constitutes the “client” when it comes to [[legal advice privilege]]; it traversed similar ground to the {{ | 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 [[civil litigation privilege|civil litigation]]. The court found: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*[[litigation privilege]] does not apply to documents created with the purpose of obtaining advice about how to avoid contemplated litigation. | *[[litigation privilege]] does not apply to documents created with the purpose of obtaining advice about how to avoid contemplated litigation. | ||
As regards interview notes, {{casenote1|Three Rivers | As regards interview notes, {{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} set down a general test as to who was the “client” for [[legal advice privilege]]. The court also rejected ENRC’s case that the interview notes comprised lawyers’ working papers. | ||
The Judge refused permission to appeal on all aspects of the decision so the application for permission (including in relation to the Judge’s approach to the evidence, which she regarded to be inadequate to substantiate the claims to privilege) will be made to the Court of Appeal. | The Judge refused permission to appeal on all aspects of the decision so the application for permission (including in relation to the Judge’s approach to the evidence, which she regarded to be inadequate to substantiate the claims to privilege) will be made to the Court of Appeal. | ||