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 11:12, 12 September 2018
, 12 September 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
[[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}}. | [[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}}. | ||
Among the High Court’s findings that the Court of Appeal considered were the following: | |||
*A claim for legal advice privilege require the proponent to show that the information was obtained for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice? | |||
*None of the documents was protected by legal advice privilege because: | |||
**the information they contained was not communicated to ENRC’s solicitor by anyone authorised to give or receive legal advice on behalf of ENRC or its subsidiaries; | |||
** the information they contained was not communicated to ENRC’s solicitor for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, but rather for the purposes of that solicitor’s investigation of the facts; | |||
**there was overwhelming evidence that ENRC had intended or agreed to share the information they contained with the SFO as part of a self-reporting process. | |||
*lawyers’ working papers are only protected by legal advice privilege if they would betray the tenor of the legal advice. | |||
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: | ||