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

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

Revision as of 08:02, 12 September 2018

90 bytes added , 12 September 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''An important case on [[legal advice privilege]]'''.
-{{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.
+'''NEWSFLASH +++ HIGH-COURT OVER-RULED +++ MORE TO FOLLOW +++ September 2018'''
-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}}.
+{{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 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 [[litigation privilege|civil litigation]]. The court found:
+The High Court 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 High 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 [[litigation privilege|civil litigation]]. The court found:
 *an SFO raid and the processes it triggers (including an SFO investigation) are *not* adversarial litigation;
 *“reasonable anticipation” of an ''investigation'' did not amount to reasonable anticipation of ''litigation'';