82,890
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 19:27, 19 December 2020
, 19 December 2020Amwelladmin moved page Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation - Case Note to Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation - Case Note to Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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. | {{cn}}'''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. | ||
[[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]]. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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: | ||
... 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. | |||
... 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 {{casenote1|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 {{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} overruled too: | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
As regards interview notes, {{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} set down a general test as to who was the “client” for [[legal advice privilege]]. The court also rejected ENRC’s case that the interview notes comprised lawyers’ working papers. [[Andrews J]] also refused permission to appeal on all aspects of the decision so the application for permission to appeal (including in relation to the Judge’s approach to the evidence, which she regarded to be inadequate to substantiate the claims to privilege) was made to the Court of Appeal directly. Tasty stuff. | As regards interview notes, {{casenote1|Three Rivers No. 5}} set down a general test as to who was the “client” for [[legal advice privilege]]. The court also rejected ENRC’s case that the interview notes comprised lawyers’ working papers. [[Andrews J]] also refused permission to appeal on all aspects of the decision so the application for permission to appeal (including in relation to the Judge’s approach to the evidence, which she regarded to be inadequate to substantiate the claims to privilege) was made to the Court of Appeal directly. Tasty stuff. | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*High Court judgment is available [[Media:SFO-v-ENRC-2017-EWHC-1017-QB-approved-Judgment.pdf|here]]. | *High Court judgment is available [[Media:SFO-v-ENRC-2017-EWHC-1017-QB-approved-Judgment.pdf|here]]. | ||
*[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2006.html The judgment transcript] of the Court of Appeal decision {{cite|Serious Fraud Office|Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation|2018|EWCA_Civ|2006}}. | *[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2006.html The judgment transcript] of the Court of Appeal decision {{cite|Serious Fraud Office|Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation|2018|EWCA_Civ|2006}}. | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||