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 16:46, 12 September 2018
, 12 September 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Andrews J]] in the High Court considered the Court of Appeal’s controversial decision in {{Casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} as to who constitutes the “client” when it comes to [[legal advice privilege]]; in doing so traversing similar ground to the {{casenote1|RBS Rights Issue Litigation}} and in reaching her judgment that Three Rivers was correct and indeed taking it even further, propagated a thread of common law which was widely seen by right-thinking contrarian folk as, at a stroke, destroying the very concept of [[legal professional privilege]] inside organisations (like lovely [[investment bank]]s) big enough to employ their own [[inhouse counsel]]. | [[Andrews J]] in the High Court considered the Court of Appeal’s controversial decision in {{Casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} as to who constitutes the “client” when it comes to [[legal advice privilege]]; in doing so traversing similar ground to the {{casenote1|RBS Rights Issue Litigation}} and in reaching her judgment that Three Rivers was correct and indeed taking it even further, propagated a thread of common law which was widely seen by right-thinking contrarian folk as, at a stroke, destroying the very concept of [[legal professional privilege]] inside organisations (like lovely [[investment bank]]s) big enough to employ their own [[inhouse counsel]]. | ||
It was really a case of ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'', where the [[little old lady]] in question was the Director of the Serious Fraud Office<ref>[[Andrews J]] — not herself a [[little old lady]], needless to say — has form for finding them in odd places — small luxury hotels in Wales, executive enforcement agencies of the British government etc. See {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.</ref>, but happily, in September 2018 the Court of Appeal overturned [[Andrews J]]’s decision and, in not so many words, invited ENRC to make a further appeal to the Supreme Court so that | It was really a case of ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'', where the [[little old lady]] in question was the Director of the Serious Fraud Office<ref>[[Andrews J]] — not herself a [[little old lady]], needless to say — has form for finding them in odd places — small luxury hotels in Wales, executive enforcement agencies of the British government etc. See {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.</ref>, but happily, in September 2018 the Court of Appeal overturned [[Andrews J]]’s decision and, in not so many words, invited ENRC to make a further appeal to the Supreme Court so that {{Casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} case could be overruled too. | ||
The pithy paragraph — not ''that'' pithy, since whoever held the pen is no prose stylist — was number 126 — emphasis added: | The pithy paragraph — not ''that'' pithy, since whoever held the pen is no prose stylist — was number 126 — emphasis added: | ||