82,883
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 09:16, 12 September 2018
, 12 September 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''An important case on [[legal advice privilege]]'''. | '''An important case on [[legal advice privilege]]'''. | ||
'''NEWSFLASH +++ HIGH-COURT OVER-RULED +++ MORE TO FOLLOW +++ September 2018''' | '''NEWSFLASH +++ HIGH-COURT OVER-RULED +++ MORE TO FOLLOW +++ September 2018''' <br> | ||
For now, see: | |||
*[https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/landmark-privilege-win-appeal-court-rules-against-sfo-in-enrc-case-/5067427.article This briefing from the Law Society Gazette]. | |||
*[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2006.html The judgment transcript]. | |||
{{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. | ||
[[Andrews J]] in 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: | 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: | ||