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

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

Revision as of 16:23, 12 September 2018

18 bytes added , 12 September 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ... large corporations need, as much as small corporations and individuals, to seek and obtain legal advice without fear of intrusion.  If [[legal advice privilege]] is confined to communications passing between the lawyer and the “client” (in the sense of the instructing individual or those employees of a company authorised to seek and receive legal advice on its behalf), this presents no problem for individuals and many small businesses, since the information about the case will normally be obtained by the lawyer from the individual or board members of the small corporation.  ....  In the modern world, however, we have to cater for legal advice sought by large national corporations and indeed multinational ones.  In such cases, the information upon which legal advice is sought is unlikely to be in the hands of the main board or those it appoints to seek and receive legal advice.  ''If a multinational corporation cannot ask its lawyers to obtain the information it needs to advise that corporation from the corporation’s employees with relevant first-hand knowledge under the protection of [[legal advice privilege]], that corporation will be in a less advantageous position than a smaller entity seeking such advice.'' In our view, at least, whatever the rule is, it should be equally applicable to all clients, whatever their size or reach.}}
-And then, at para. 130, the Court of Appeal gives a nod and a wink and ''basically tells ENRC to appeal this to the Supreme Court'' and get {{casenote|Three Rivers No. 5}} overruled too:
+And then, at para. 130, the Court of Appeal gives a nod and a wink and ''basically tells ENRC to appeal this to the Supreme Court'' and get {{casenote|Three Rivers No. 5|}} overruled too:
-{{box|If, therefore, it had been open to us to depart from Three Rivers (No. 5) , we would have been in favour of doing so.  For the reasons we have given, however, we do not think that it is open to us, so it is a matter that will have to be considered again by the Supreme Court in this or an appropriate future case.
+{{box|If, therefore, it had been open to us to depart from {{casenote|Three Rivers No. 5|}}, we would have been in favour of doing so.  For the reasons we have given, however, we do not think that it is open to us, so it is a matter that will have to be considered again by the Supreme Court ''in this or an appropriate future case''.}}
 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].