82,882
edits
Three Rivers No. 5: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{cite|Three Rivers District Council|Bank of England (No. 5)|2003|EWHC|A2565}} is a controversial decision of the UK Court of Appeal about {{t|legal privilege}}. [http://www....") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The Bank of England claimed [[legal professional privilege]] for documents created between BCCI’s collapse and the Bank’s final submissions to the Bingham Inquiry. | The Bank of England claimed [[legal professional privilege]] for documents created between BCCI’s collapse and the Bank’s final submissions to the Bingham Inquiry. | ||
The Bank does not claim they were prepared in contemplation of litigation and so are thereby protected by “[[litigation privilege]]”; the Bank claims they protected by simple "legal advice privilege" — privilege relating to legal advice ''not'' provided contemplation of litigation. | The Bank does not claim they were prepared in contemplation of litigation and so are thereby protected by “[[litigation privilege]]”; the Bank claims they protected by simple "[[legal advice privilege]]" — privilege relating to legal advice ''not'' provided contemplation of litigation. | ||
The lower court had held: “... an internal confidential document, not being a communication with a third party, which was produced or brought into existence with the dominant purpose that it or its contents be used to obtain legal advice is privileged from production...” | |||