82,882
edits
Three Rivers No. 5: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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 issue boiled down to whether communicatons ''between employees'' for the purpose of seeking legal advice from a solicitor (but not specifically in contemplation of litigation) would be covered by the general privilege. Per general case law, some of which summarized below, the starting proposition was no —information given by one employee to another stands in the same condition as matters known to the client and does not, of itself, attract general solicitor client privilege—but the proposition argued for the claimants was that a corporate defendant was different as it only could act through its employees. | |||
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...” | 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...” | ||