83,223
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The case 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 case 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 court rejected all of ENRC’s claims to {{tag|privilege}}, holding that [[ | The 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: | ||
*an SFO raid and the processes it triggers (including an SFO investigation) are *not* adversarial litigation; | *an SFO raid and the processes it triggers (including an SFO investigation) are *not* adversarial litigation; | ||
*“reasonable anticipation” of an ''investigation'' did not amount to reasonable anticipation of ''litigation''; | *“reasonable anticipation” of an ''investigation'' did not amount to reasonable anticipation of ''litigation''; |