82,891
edits
Three Rivers No. 5: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A marked man, since the Court of Appeals happy decision in {{casenote|SFO|ENRC}}, {{cite|Three Rivers District Council|Bank of England (No. 5)|2003|EWHC|2565}} is a controversial decision of the UK Court of Appeal about legal {{t|privilege}}. | A marked man, since the Court of Appeals happy decision in {{casenote|SFO|ENRC}}, {{cite|Three Rivers District Council|Bank of England (No. 5)|2003|EWHC|2565}} is a controversial decision of the UK Court of Appeal about legal {{t|privilege}}. | ||
It is still the law, but expect it to be overruled soon. | |||
It has been criticised as creating a risk of restricting the "client" to some limited group of employees, so that communications or documents prepared by anyone else in the organisation would not be privileged, unless prepared for the purposes of contemplated litigation. That is because, unlike [[litigation privilege]], [[legal advice privilege]] does not apply to communications with third parties; it only covers lawyer-client communications. | It has been criticised as creating a risk of restricting the "client" to some limited group of employees, so that communications or documents prepared by anyone else in the organisation would not be privileged, unless prepared for the purposes of contemplated litigation. That is because, unlike [[litigation privilege]], [[legal advice privilege]] does not apply to communications with third parties; it only covers lawyer-client communications. | ||