R (On The Application of Prudential PLC)

R.
(on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of

Income Tax
Supreme Court | January 23, 2013 | 2013 WL 128056
Search Details
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Delivery Details
Date: 3 October 2021 at 6:05 pm
Delivered By: Mohammad Hussien
Client ID: NOCLIENTID
Status Icons:
© 2021 Thomson Reuters.

R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special..., 2013 WL 128056 (2013)
For educational use only

R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special
Commissioner of Income Tax
Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration
Court
Supreme Court
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Where Reported
[2013] UKSC 1
[2013] 2 A.C. 185
[2013] 2 W.L.R. 325
[2013] 2 All E.R. 247
[2013] S.T.C. 376
[2013] 1 WLUK 431
[2013] 2 Costs L.R. 275
[2013] 1 F.C.R. 545
82 T.C. 64
[2013] B.T.C. 45
[2013] C.I.L.L. 3309
[2013] S.T.I. 264
[2013] 5 E.G. 96 (C.S.)
(2013) 163 N.L.J. 109
Times, February 5, 2013
[2013] C.L.Y. 2390
Judgment
Subject
Professions
Other related subjects

Accountancy; Legal profession; Tax
Keywords
Accountants; Legal advice privilege; Professionals; Tax avoidance
Judge
Lord Neuberger JSC;
Lord Hope DPSC;
Lord Walker JSC;
Lord Mance JSC;
Lord Clarke JSC;
Lord Sumption JSC;
Lord Reed JSC
Counsel
For the appellants: Lord Pannick QC, Conrad McDonnell.
For the respondent: James Eadie QC, Patrick Goodall.
For the first intervener: Sydney Kentridge QC, Tom Adam QC, Tim Johnston.
For the second intervener: Patricia Robertson QC.
For the third intervener: Philip Havers QC.
For the fourth intervener: Bankim Thanki QC, Ben Valentin, Henry King, Rebecca Loveridge.
For the fifth intervener: Michael Edenborough QC, James Tumbridge.
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 1

Solicitor
For the appellants: PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP.
For the first intervener: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.
For the second intervener: Simmons & Simmons.
For the third intervener: In-house solicitor.
For the fourth intervener: Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.
For the fifth intervener: Gowlings (UK) LLP.
For the respondents: In-house solicitor.
Case Digest
Summary
Legal advice privilege did not apply to legal advice given by someone other than a member of the legal profession,
and therefore did not cover legal advice given by accountants in relation to a tax avoidance scheme.
Abstract
The appellant companies (P) appealed against a decision ([2010] EWCA Civ 1094, [2011] Q.B. 669) that legal
advice given by accountants in respect of tax matters was not covered by legal advice privilege.
The Revenue had issued a notice under the Taxes Management Act 1970 s.20 requiring disclosure of documents
relating to a tax avoidance scheme. P refused to disclose documents containing legal advice from their accountants
on the ground that they were covered by legal advice privilege.
Held
Appeal dismissed.
(Lords Sumption and Clarke JJ.S.C. dissenting) (1) Allowing the appeal would extend legal advice privilege
considerably beyond what had for a long time been understood to be its limits. There was a strong argument in
principle for allowing the appeal: the privilege was based on the need to ensure that a person could seek legal
advice with candour, and it was conferred for the client's benefit, not for the legal profession. It was therefore
hard to see why the privilege should be restricted to legal advisers who happened to be lawyers. The principled
arguments for restricting the privilege to professional lawyers were weak, although not wholly devoid of force
(see paras 37-42 of judgment). (2) However, legal advice privilege would not be extended to communications in
connection with advice given by professional people other than lawyers, even where that advice was legal advice
which that person was qualified to give. The consequences of allowing the appeal were hard to assess and were
likely to lead to a clear and well-understood principle becoming unclear and uncertain. The accepted state of the
law was clear to advisers and relatively easy to explain to clients. The implications had been generally understood
and allowed for by the rules and practice of the courts and in legislation. Extending the privilege to advice given
by a member of a profession which ordinarily included giving legal advice, as had been proposed, carried an
unacceptable risk of uncertainty. It was unclear whether certain occupations would be regarded as professions,
and unclear how a court was to decide whether a profession was one which ordinarily included giving legal advice
(paras 51-57). The question of whether the privilege should be extended raised questions of policy which should
be left to Parliament. Many pieces of legislation gave the executive power to call for documents, which could
be resisted by invoking the privilege. It would require exceptional circumstances before the courts could create
or extend such a right. Further, the passing of the Legal Services Act 2007 indicated that Parliament was ready
to change common law practices involving special rules for lawyers when it wished to do so. The extension of
the privilege to other professions might only be appropriate on a conditional or limited basis; that could properly
be considered by Parliament, not by the courts. The matter had been discussed in Parliament and proposed to
the executive, and Parliament had apparently chosen not to extend the privilege to accountants giving tax advice.
Such points could be overcome if there was a pressing need for the common law to move; there was no evidence
that got near establishing such a need (para 61-67). Parliament had enacted legislation relating to the privilege,
which suggested that it would be inappropriate for the court to extend the law on the privilege. It had on occasions
extended the privilege on the basis that it had been limited to members of the legal profession; such provisions
would have been unnecessary had the privilege already been broader (paras 68-69). (3) (Obiter, per Lord Hope

J.S.C.) There was likely to be interest in the instant case in Scotland as well as England. Although the law had
developed separately there, it had developed in the same direction. It was not apparent that the courts had yet been
required to decide whether the privilege should be confined to lawyers; the authorities therefore did not foreclose
the possible application of the privilege to accountants' advice. Nevertheless, the general understanding was that
the privilege applied only to legal professionals. If the question of whether to extend the privilege were to arise,
the courts would have to make a policy decision (paras 102-113). (4) (Per Lord Sumption J.S.C.) Legal advice
privilege was the client's privilege, depended on the public interest in promoting access to legal advice on the
basis of absolute confidence, and was not dependent on the status of the adviser. Accordingly, there could be no
principled reason for distinguishing between the advice of lawyers and accountants. Recognising that would not
extend the scope of the privilege at common law, but would only recognise that much legal advice was given by
advisers who were not lawyers. It was not necessary to leave the matter to Parliament (paras 122-130).
Appellate History
23 January 2013 R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
Supreme Court - [2013] UKSC 1
Subject: Professions; Accountancy; Legal profession; Tax
AFFIRMED
13 October 2010 R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2010] EWCA Civ 1094
Subject: Tax; Human rights; Accountancy; Legal profession; Civil procedure
AFFIRMED
14 October 2009 R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) - [2009] EWHC 2494 (Admin)
Subject: Tax; Accountancy; Legal profession
Primary References
All Cases Cited
R. (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice

Negative Judicial Consideration
Divisional Court - [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin) - 16 August 2012
Subject: Health; Human rights
Case Analysis | [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin) | [2012] 8 WLUK 204 | [2012] 3 F.C.R. 233 | [2012] H.R.L.R. 32 | [2012] Med.
L.R. 544 | (2012) 127 B.M.L.R. 197 | [2012] A.C.D. 118 | (2012) 109(32) L.S.G. 18 | Times, November 13, 2012 | Judgment
Summary:
Assisted suicide; Locked-in syndrome; Right to die; Adapting common law to provide defence by way of
necessity to murder in voluntary euthanasia cases; Prosecution of those assisting suicide
It was for Parliament to decide whether to change the law on voluntary euthanasia and the court could not
alter the common law to create a defence to murder by way of necessity in the case of voluntary euthanasia.
As the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that a blanket ban on assisted

suicide was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights art.8 the same had to apply
to voluntary euthanasia.
Tower MCashback LLP 1 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Supreme Court - [2011] UKSC 19 - 11 May 2011
Subject: Tax; Information technology
Case Analysis | [2011] UKSC 19 | [2011] 2 A.C. 457 | [2011] 2 W.L.R. 1131 | [2011] 3 All E.R. 171 | [2011] S.T.C. 1143 |
[2011] 5 WLUK 255 | 80 T.C. 641 | [2011] B.T.C. 294 | [2011] S.T.I. 1620 | (2011) 108(21) L.S.G. 19 | Times, May 16, 2011 |
Judgment
Summary:
Capital allowances; Closure notices; Scope of appeal against refusal of first-year allowances
Whenever possible, an officer preparing a closure notice should set out his conclusions on each point of the
enquiry that led to an amendment to a tax payer's return. However, where the facts were complicated and
their analysis controversial, the public interest required that the closure notice be worded in more general
terms. That was not to be taken as encouragement to the commissioners to draft every closure notice widely.
Jones v Kaney
Supreme Court - [2011] UKSC 13 - 30 March 2011
Subject: Civil evidence; Negligence
Case Analysis | [2011] UKSC 13 | [2011] 2 A.C. 398 | [2011] 2 W.L.R. 823 | [2011] 2 All E.R. 671 | [2011] 3 WLUK 949 |
[2011] B.L.R. 283 | 135 Con. L.R. 1 | [2011] 2 F.L.R. 312 | [2012] 2 F.C.R. 372 | (2011) 119 B.M.L.R. 167 | [2011] P.N.L.R.
21 | [2011] C.I.L.L. 3037 | [2011] Fam. Law 1202 | [2011] 14 E.G. 95 (C.S.) | (2011) 108(15) L.S.G. 19 | (2011) 161 N.L.J.
508 | (2011) 155(13) S.J.L.B. 30 | Times, March 31, 2011 | Judgment
Summary:
Expert witnesses; Immunity from suit; No justification for continuing to hold expert witness immune from
suit
There was no justification for continuing to hold expert witnesses immune from suit in relation to evidence
they gave in court or for the views they expressed in anticipation of court proceedings.
R. (on the application of Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Supreme Court - [2010] UKSC 54 - 8 December 2010
Subject: Social security
Case Analysis | [2010] UKSC 54 | [2011] 2 A.C. 15 | [2011] 2 W.L.R. 1 | [2011] 1 All E.R. 729 | [2011] P.T.S.R. 185 | [2010]
12 WLUK 224 | (2010) 108(2) L.S.G. 19 | (2010) 154(47) S.J.L.B. 30 | Times, December 13, 2010 | Judgment
Summary:
Overpayment of benefits; Common law rights; Effect of s.71 Social Security Administration Act 1992 on
secretary of state's common law right to recover
Where a social security benefit falling within the Social Security Administration Act 1992 s.71(11) was paid
pursuant to the machinery contained in the Social Security Act 1998, it could only be reclaimed from the
claimant under s.71 of that 1992 Act, or some other specific statutory provision. Accordingly, the Secretary
of State for Work and Pensions could not resort to common law to recover social security benefit which had
been overpaid by mistake.

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v European Commission (C-550/07 P)

No Substantial Judicial Treatment
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) - EU:C:2010:512 - 14 September 2010
Subject: Legal profession; Civil procedure; Competition law; European Union
Case Analysis | EU:C:2010:512 | [2011] 2 A.C. 338 | [2011] 3 W.L.R. 755 | [2011] Bus. L.R. 1458 | [2010] 9 WLUK 248 |
[2010] 5 C.M.L.R. 19 | [2011] All E.R. (EC) 1107 | [2011] C.E.C. 253 | (2010) 160 N.L.J. 1300 | EU Decision
Summary:
Legal professional privilege; In-house lawyers; Investigation of anti-competitive practices; Correspondence
between manager and in-house lawyer; European Union
Legal professional privilege at Community level applied to written communications between clients and
independent lawyers, but not to written communications between undertakings and in-house lawyers.
R. v National Post
Supreme Court (Canada) - 2010 SCC 16, 30 B.H.R.C. 348 - 7 May 2010
Summary:
No summary is available for this document
Prudential Plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2009] EWCA Civ 622 - 25 June 2009
Subject: Tax; Banking and finance
Case Analysis | [2009] EWCA Civ 622 | [2009] S.T.C. 2459 | [2009] 6 WLUK 700 | 79 T.C. 691 | [2009] B.T.C. 306 | [2009]
S.T.I. 2024 | Judgment
Summary:
Corporation tax; Currency swaps; Front end payments in foreign hedging transactions; Qualifying payments
under s.151(1)(b) Finance Act 1994
Payments made by a financial services company to two companies under currency swap agreements were not
deductible against corporation tax as qualifying payments under the Finance Act 1994 s.151(1)(b) where the
financial services company had created the need for an inducement by making offers which, without those
payments, would not have been considered.
C's Application for Judicial Review, Re

House of Lords (Northern Ireland) - [2009] UKHL 15 - 11 March 2009
Subject: Criminal evidence; Police
Case Analysis | [2009] UKHL 15 | [2009] 1 A.C. 908 | [2009] 2 W.L.R. 782 | [2009] 4 All E.R. 335 | [2009] N.I. 258 | [2009]
3 WLUK 249 | [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 1 | [2009] E.M.L.R. 19 | [2009] H.R.L.R. 20 | [2009] U.K.H.R.R. 853 | [2009] Po. L.R.
114 | [2009] Crim. L.R. 525 | (2009) 153(11) S.J.L.B. 28 | Times, March 12, 2009 | Judgment
Summary:
Covert surveillance; Legal professional privilege; Applicability of Pt II Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000 to consultations ordinarily attracting professional privilege
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Pt II permitted the covert surveillance of communications
between lawyers and their clients, even though those communications might be covered by legal professional

privilege and notwithstanding the various statutory rights of people in custody to consult privately with their
lawyers.
Coleman v Attridge Law (A Firm) (C-303/06)

Mixed Judicial Consideration
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) - EU:C:2008:415 - 17 July 2008
Subject: Employment; European Union
Case Analysis | EU:C:2008:415 | [2008] E.C.R. I-5603 | [2008] 7 WLUK 504 | [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 27 | [2008] All E.R. (EC)
1105 | [2008] C.E.C. 986 | [2008] I.C.R. 1128 | [2008] I.R.L.R. 722 | Times, July 29, 2008 | EU Decision
Summary:
Disability discrimination; Harassment; Applicability of Directive 2000/78 to non-disabled employee caring
for disabled child; European Community
The prohibition of direct discrimination against and harassment of disabled people contained in Directive
2000/78 was intended to protect not only persons who were themselves disabled but also those who cared
for disabled people.
Monro v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2008] EWCA Civ 306 - 9 April 2008
Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [2008] EWCA Civ 306 | [2009] Ch. 69 | [2008] 3 W.L.R. 734 | [2008] S.T.C. 1815 | [2008] 4 WLUK 229 | 79
T.C. 579 | [2008] B.T.C. 188 | [2008] S.T.I. 1197 | (2008) 105(16) L.S.G. 29 | Judgment
Summary:
Repayments; Remedies; Overpayments by mistake of law; Legislative displacement of common law remedies
Where the Taxes Management Act 1970 s.33 applied to a case, a taxpayer who had overpaid due to a
computation later declared wrong in law could not bring a claim under the common law remedy of restitution
for recovery of the money paid under a mistake of law as such a remedy was precluded by s.33.
Narden Services Ltd v Inverness Retail and Business Park Ltd

Court of Session (Inner House, Extra Division) - [2008] CSIH 14 - 12 February 2008
Subject: Civil procedure
Case Analysis | [2008] CSIH 14 | 2008 S.C. 335 | 2008 S.L.T. 621 | [2008] 2 WLUK 266 | 2008 G.W.D. 11-202 | Judgment
Summary:
Commission and diligence; Confidentiality; Recovery of confidential documents; Appropriate solution
A company raised a petition seeking rectification of the register of members of a retail business park. During
the course of the proceedings, the third and fourth respondents (shareholders in a company who were the
second respondents) enrolled a motion for commission and diligence for recovery of documents lodged by
a firm of solicitors. A motion to open the documents was granted, following which the third and fourth
respondents lodged a motion seeking to open further confidential documents lodged by a firm of accountants.
This motion was opposed by the remaining respondents who were anxious to maintain confidentiality and
privilege. The action came before the temporary judge who continued the motion for a further hearing
and refused to appoint a commissioner as requested by the remaining respondents. The third and fourth
respondents initially reclaimed, but later abandoned that action. The remaining respondents entered a cross
reclaiming motion contending that the open-ended...

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-125/03)

Court of First Instance (First Chamber) - EU:T:2007:287 - 17 September 2007
Subject: Competition law; European Union
Case Analysis | EU:T:2007:287 | [2008] Bus. L.R. 348 | [2007] E.C.R. II-3523 | [2007] 9 WLUK 268 | [2008] 4 C.M.L.R. 3 |
[2008] All E.R. (EC) 1 | [2007] C.I.L.L. 2513 | EU Decision
Summary:
Anti-competitive practices; Investigations; Powers of European Commission concerning documents where
legal professional privilege claimed; European Community
Regulation 17/62 provided that, where an undertaking suspected of anti-competitive practices was
undergoing an investigation but refused to disclose business records on the ground of legal professional
privilege, it was nevertheless obliged to produce relevant material demonstrating that such documents
fulfilled the conditions for legal protection, without being obliged to disclose their contents.
Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin' Ltd

House of Lords (Northern Ireland) - [2007] UKHL 19 - 25 April 2007
Subject: Licensing; Human rights; Local government
Case Analysis | [2007] UKHL 19 | [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1420 | [2007] 3 All E.R. 1007 | [2007] N.I. 89 | [2007] 4 WLUK 410 |
[2007] H.R.L.R. 26 | [2008] B.L.G.R. 127 | [2007] L.L.R. 312 | (2007) 104(19) L.S.G. 27 | (2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 575 | Times,
May 1, 2007 | Judgment
Summary:
Licences; Sex establishments; Refusal of licence; Lawfulness of decision-making process
In human rights adjudication, a court was concerned with whether the human rights of a claimant had been
infringed, not with whether the administrative decision-maker had properly taken them into account.
Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (Costs)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 - 2 December 2005
Subject: Civil procedure; Tax; Legal profession; Legal advice and funding
Case Analysis | [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 | [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2126 | [2006] 1 All E.R. 900 | [2006] S.T.C. 580 | [2005] 12
WLUK 66 | [2006] 2 Costs L.R. 283 | [2006] B.T.C. 3 | [2005] S.T.I. 1994 | (2005) 155 N.L.J. 1885 | (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 28 |
[2005] N.P.C. 140 | Times, December 22, 2005 | Independent, December 7, 2005 | Judgment
Summary:
costs; litigants in person; recovery of costs of tax experts who were not solicitors
Where a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation instructed a barrister under the Bar's Licensed Access
Scheme, the presence of the barrister did not prevent the party on whose behalf the barrister had been
instructed from being a litigant in person. The words "acting as a solicitor" in the Solicitors Act 1974 s.20
were limited to the doing of acts that only a solicitor could perform and/or the doing of acts by a person
pretending or holding himself out to be a solicitor. A party was not entitled to recover costs as a disbursement
in respect of work done by another that would normally have been done by a solicitor.
Spectrum Plus Ltd (In Liquidation), Re

House of Lords - [2005] UKHL 41 - 30 June 2005
Subject: Insolvency; Banking and finance; Company law
Case Analysis | [2005] UKHL 41 | [2005] 2 A.C. 680 | [2005] 3 W.L.R. 58 | [2005] 4 All E.R. 209 | [2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep.
275 | [2005] 6 WLUK 703 | [2005] B.C.C. 694 | [2005] 2 B.C.L.C. 269 | (2005) 155 N.L.J. 1045 | Times, July 1, 2005 |
Independent, July 6, 2005 | Judgment

Summary:
liquidation; preferential creditors; debenture created floating charge over book debts; retrospective effect of
House of Lords decision; "prospective overruling"
A charge over book debts in a debenture which required the proceeds of the book debts to be paid into an
account with the bank but placed no restriction on the use that could be made of the balance on the account
thereafter was a floating and not a fixed charge, Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd (1979) 2
Lloyd's Rep 142 overruled.
R. (on the application of Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
House of Lords - [2005] UKHL 37 - 26 May 2005
Subject: Social security; Human rights; Pensions
Case Analysis | [2005] UKHL 37 | [2006] 1 A.C. 173 | [2005] 2 W.L.R. 1369 | [2005] 4 All E.R. 545 | [2005] 5 WLUK 687 |
[2005] H.R.L.R. 23 | [2005] U.K.H.R.R. 1185 | 18 B.H.R.C. 677 | Times, May 27, 2005 | Judgment
Summary:
benefits; peaceful enjoyment of possessions; objective justification for discriminatory provision
A pensioner resident in a country which did not have a reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom for
cost of living increases in pension benefits could not compare herself with a pensioner in such a country or in
the UK, and therefore failed in a claim for unlawful discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998
Sch.1 Part I Art.14. Paying a lower rate of jobseeker's allowance and income support to persons under 25
was not contrary to Art.14 because it could be objectively justified.
Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes)

House of Lords - [2004] UKHL 51 - 25 November 2004
Subject: Tax; Commercial law; Banking and finance; Utilities
Case Analysis | [2004] UKHL 51 | [2005] 1 A.C. 684 | [2004] 3 W.L.R. 1383 | [2005] 1 All E.R. 97 | [2005] S.T.C. 1 | [2004]
11 WLUK 686 | 76 T.C. 446 | [2004] B.T.C. 414 | 7 I.T.L. Rep. 383 | [2004] S.T.I. 2435 | (2004) 154 N.L.J. 1830 | (2004) 148
S.J.L.B. 1403 | Times, November 27, 2004 | Judgment
Summary:
capital allowances; corporation tax; capital expenditure on provision of plant; expenditure incurred for
purpose of trade
In the case of a finance lease, the requirements of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 s.24(1) were concerned
entirely with the acts and purposes of the lessor. What a lessee did with the purchase price, following a sale
and lease back transaction, as part of a tax planning scheme was irrelevant in determining the availability
of capital allowances under that section.
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England

Subject: Civil evidence; Financial regulation; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2004] UKHL 48 | [2005] 1 A.C. 610 | [2004] 3 W.L.R. 1274 | [2005] 4 All E.R. 948 | [2004] 11 WLUK 298
| (2004) 101(46) L.S.G. 34 | (2004) 154 N.L.J. 1727 | (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1369 | Times, November 12, 2004 | Independent,
November 16, 2004 | Judgment
Summary:
legal professional privilege; inquiries; scope of legal advice privilege

Legal advice privilege attached to advice given by solicitors about the preparation and presentation of
evidence to be submitted to an inquiry since legal advice for the purposes of the privilege included advice as
to what should prudently and sensibly be done in the relevant legal context.
Sheldrake v DPP
House of Lords - [2004] UKHL 43 - 14 October 2004
Subject: Criminal evidence; Human rights; Criminal law
| [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 28 | (2004) 168 J.P. 669 | [2005] R.T.R. 2 | [2004] H.R.L.R. 44 | [2005] U.K.H.R.R. 1 | 17 B.H.R.C.
339 | [2005] L.L.R. 198 | [2005] Crim. L.R. 215 | (2005) 169 J.P.N. 19 | (2004) 101(43) L.S.G. 33 | (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1216 |
Times, October 15, 2004 | Judgment
Summary:
burden of proof; reverse burden; in charge of vehicle while drunk; membership of proscribed terrorist
organisation; effect of reverse burden on presumption of innocence
The Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(2) imposed a legal burden on an accused who was charged with an offence
contrary to s.5(1)(b) of the Act. The Terrorism Act 2000 s.11(2) was to be interpreted as imposing an
evidential burden on the defendant.
McKerr's Application for Judicial Review, Re

House of Lords (Northern Ireland) - [2004] UKHL 12 - 11 March 2004
Subject: Human rights; Administration of justice
Case Analysis | [2004] UKHL 12 | [2004] 1 W.L.R. 807 | [2004] 2 All E.R. 409 | [2004] N.I. 212 | [2004] 3 WLUK 321 |
[2004] H.R.L.R. 26 | [2004] U.K.H.R.R. 385 | 17 B.H.R.C. 68 | [2004] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 263 | [2004] Inquest L.R. 35 |
(2004) 101(13) L.S.G. 33 | (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 355 | Times, March 12, 2004 | Judgment
Summary:
right to life; investigations; respondent's father shot dead by police in 1982; right to effective investigation;
retrospective effect of Human Rights Act 1998
The government's failure to hold an effective official investigation into a violent death caused by a police
officer had not breached the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(1) since the Act was not retrospective and created
no right to investigate deaths which had occurred before its implementation.
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

House of Lords - [2003] UKHL 66 - 4 December 2003
Subject: Nuisance; Human rights; Utilities
| [2004] B.L.R. 1 | 91 Con. L.R. 1 | [2004] Env. L.R. 25 | [2004] H.R.L.R. 10 | [2004] U.K.H.R.R. 253 | [2003] 50 E.G. 95
(C.S.) | (2004) 101(4) L.S.G. 32 | (2003) 153 N.L.J. 1869 | (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 1429 | [2003] N.P.C. 150 | Times, December 5,
2003 | Independent, December 9, 2003 | Judgment
Summary:
sewerage undertakers; nuisance; liability for damage to property caused by flooding from overloaded sewers
The claimant, whose property had been subject to flooding as a result of overloaded sewers, did not have
a common law action in nuisance against the defendant as to allow such an action would set at nought the
comprehensive statutory scheme laid down in the Water Industry Act 1991. The claim under the Human

Rights Act 1998 was ill-founded and the statutory scheme complied with the European Convention on Human
Rights.
B v Auckland District Law Society

Privy Council (New Zealand) - [2003] UKPC 38 - 19 May 2003
Subject: Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2003] UKPC 38 | [2003] 2 A.C. 736 | [2003] 3 W.L.R. 859 | [2004] 4 All E.R. 269 | [2003] 5 WLUK 556 |
(2003) 100(26) L.S.G. 38 | (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 627 | Times, May 21, 2003 | Judgment
Summary:
solicitors; documents provided to complaints committee for limited purposes; legal professional privilege as
answer to requisition of documents; New Zealand
Investigation by District Law Society in New Zealand into complaints against law firm and its partners -
Firm supplied documents to counsel appointed to assist complaints committee on basis that privilege had
not been waived - Firm sought return of documents - Law Society exercised statutory powers to requisition
them under Law Practitioners Act 1982 s 101(3)(d) - Privilege good answer to requisition - Statute did not
override privilege expressly or by necessary implication - Privilege not lost by firm's disclosure for limited
purposes - Society's consensual right to retain documents terminated when firm sought their return.
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2003] EWCA Civ 474 - 3 April 2003
Case Analysis | [2003] EWCA Civ 474 | [2003] Q.B. 1556 | [2003] 3 W.L.R. 667 | [2003] 4 WLUK 119 | [2003] C.P.L.R. 349
| (2003) 100(23) L.S.G. 37 | Times, April 19, 2003 | Judgment
Summary:
legal professional privilege; scope of legal advice privilege; preparatory documents produced by employees
Legal advice privilege did not extend to internal documents supplied by employees of a bank notwithstanding
the fact that such documents were used as raw material by a committee created to obtain legal advice regarding
the inquiry into the collapse of BCCI.
Medcalf v Mardell (Wasted Costs Order)

House of Lords - [2002] UKHL 27 - 27 June 2002
[2002] C.P. Rep. 70 | [2002] C.P.L.R. 647 | [2002] 3 Costs L.R. 428 | [2002] P.N.L.R. 43 | (2002) 99(31) L.S.G. 34 | (2002)
152 N.L.J. 1032 | (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 175 | [2002] N.P.C. 89 | Times, June 28, 2002 | Judgment
Summary:
costs; wasted costs orders; legal professional privilege; counsel precluded from defending application
Where the court sought to impose a wasted costs order against counsel because of counsel's improper
allegations of fraud in the absence of reasonable credible evidential material, but counsel was precluded from
giving a full answer to the application because of legal professional privilege, the court could only make the
order if it was satisfied that counsel, if unconstrained would have no defence to the order and that it was
fair to make such an order.

R. (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income Tax
Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [2002] UKHL 21 | [2003] 1 A.C. 563 | [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1299 | [2002] 3 All E.R. 1 | [2002] S.T.C. 786 | [2002]
5 WLUK 481 | [2002] H.R.L.R. 42 | 74 T.C. 511 | [2002] B.T.C. 223 | 4 I.T.L. Rep. 809 | [2002] S.T.I. 806 | (2002) 99(25)
L.S.G. 35 | (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 126 | [2002] N.P.C. 70 | Times, May 20, 2002 | Independent, May 21, 2002 | Judgment
Summary:
taxation administration; notices; disclosure; documents in hands of taxpayer; notice issued by tax inspector;
legal professional privilege
The Taxes Management Act 1970 s.20(1) could not be construed as implying that a tax inspector could, by
the issue of a notice, require the disclosure of documents which were subject to legal professional privilege.
S (Children) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan), Re

House of Lords - [2002] UKHL 10 - 14 March 2002
Subject: Family law
| [2002] 1 F.L.R. 815 | [2002] 1 F.C.R. 577 | [2002] H.R.L.R. 26 | [2002] U.K.H.R.R. 652 | [2002] B.L.G.R. 251 | [2002]
Fam. Law 413 | (2002) 99(17) L.S.G. 34 | (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 85 | Times, March 15, 2002 | Independent, March 20, 2002 |
Judgment
Summary:
care orders; care plans; division of responsibility between courts and local authorities; compatibility with
Human Rights Act 1998
The "starring system" introduced by the Court of Appeal giving the trial judge the power to identify essential
milestones in a care plan requiring the local authority to take action if they were not achieved within a
reasonable time was contrary to the principle of non intervention by the court under the Children Act 1989.
The 1989 Act was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8.
Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC

Subject: Housing
| [2002] 1 F.C.R. 183 | [2002] H.L.R. 7 | (2001) 98(45) L.S.G. 26 | (2001) 151 N.L.J. 1664 | (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 253 | [2001]
N.P.C. 154 | Times, November 2, 2001 | Independent, November 8, 2001 | Daily Telegraph, November 6, 2001 | Judgment
Summary:
homelessness; accommodation; ability of interim accommodation to establish local connection
The occupation of interim accommodation pending a homelessness application could count as normal
residence for the purpose of establishing a local connection, and the correct date for deciding whether a
person had a local connection was the date of the decision or review rather than the date of the application.
R. v Allen (Brian Roger)

Subject: Criminal law; Tax
Case Analysis | [2001] UKHL 45 | [2002] 1 A.C. 509 | [2001] 3 W.L.R. 843 | [2001] 4 All E.R. 768 | [2001] S.T.C. 1537 |
[2001] 10 WLUK 348 | [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 18 | [2002] H.R.L.R. 4 | 74 T.C. 263 | [2001] B.T.C. 421 | 4 I.T.L. Rep. 140 |
[2001] S.T.I. 1348 | Independent, October 26, 2001 | Judgment

Summary:
income tax; shadow directors; living accommodation and benefits in kind
The definition of a director in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.168(8) included a shadow
director who had no actual office or employment with the company, but who was in receipt of living
accommodation and other benefits, and accordingly all benefits were to be treated as emoluments falling to
be assessed under Schedule E in s.19 of the Act.
R. v Dimsey (Dermot Jeremy)

Subject: Criminal law; Tax; Human rights
Case Analysis | [2001] UKHL 46 | [2002] 1 A.C. 509 | [2001] 3 W.L.R. 843 | [2001] 4 All E.R. 786 | [2001] S.T.C. 1520 |
[2001] 10 WLUK 347 | [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 17 | [2002] H.R.L.R. 5 | 74 T.C. 263 | [2001] B.T.C. 408 | 4 I.T.L. Rep. 168 |
[2001] S.T.I. 1349 | Independent, October 25, 2001 | Judgment
Summary:
tax planning; offshore companies; impact of deeming provision on income received by transferee; double
taxation
The deeming provision in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.739(2) was, properly construed, to
be given its literal meaning and its effect confined to the tax avoider with the result that the transferee's income
was deemed to be the income of the tax avoider for income tax purposes. Whilst the transferee remained
unaffected by the deeming provision it was still liable to pay tax on the income so received.
R. (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Subject: Penology and criminology
[2001] H.R.L.R. 49 | [2001] U.K.H.R.R. 887 | [2001] Prison L.R. 322 | [2001] A.C.D. 79 | (2001) 98(26) L.S.G. 43 | (2001)
145 S.J.L.B. 156 | Times, May 25, 2001 | Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2001 | Judgment
Summary:
prisoners rights; privilege; examination of legal correspondence in prisoner's absence; right to private life
The Home Secretary's blanket policy requiring correspondence between a prisoner and his legal advisers to
be examined in the prisoner's absence was unlawful and constituted a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998
Sch.1 Part I Art.8.1.
Johnson v Unisys Ltd

House of Lords - [2001] UKHL 13 - 22 March 2001
Subject: Employment
| [2001] I.C.R. 480 | [2001] I.R.L.R. 279 | [2001] Emp. L.R. 469 | Times, March 23, 2001 | Independent, March 29, 2001 |
Judgment
Summary:
employers duties; implied terms; manner of dismissal; trust and confidence

It was not possible to extend the scope of the implied term of trust and confidence as between employer and
employee so as to permit the employee to recover damages for the manner of his dismissal.
Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons

House of Lords - [2002] 1 A.C. 615 - 20 July 2000
Subject: Negligence
Case Analysis | [2002] 1 A.C. 615 | [2000] 3 W.L.R. 543 | [2000] 3 All E.R. 673 | [2000] 7 WLUK 603 | [2000] B.L.R. 407
| [2000] E.C.C. 487 | [2000] 2 F.L.R. 545 | [2000] 2 F.C.R. 673 | [2001] P.N.L.R. 6 | [2000] Fam. Law 806 | [2000] E.G. 99
(C.S.) | (2000) 97(32) L.S.G. 38 | (2000) 150 N.L.J. 1147 | (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 238 | [2000] N.P.C. 87 | Times, July 21, 2000 |
Independent, July 25, 2000 | Judgment
Summary:
professional negligence; solicitors; immunities; advocates' immunity from suit outmoded
In hearing three appeals involving the immunity of advocates from professional negligence actions, the court
held that the public policy arguments for immunity established by Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 A.C. 191 were
no longer appropriate, particularly as the court had powers under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 24
r.24.2 to prevent an abuse of process arising from inappropriate relitigation.
R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. Banque Internationale a Luxembourg SA

Queen's Bench Division - [2000] S.T.C. 708 - 23 June 2000
Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [2000] S.T.C. 708 | [2000] 6 WLUK 624 | 72 T.C. 597 | [2000] B.T.C. 228 | [2001] A.C.D. 21 | [2000] S.T.I.
919 | (2000) 97(27) L.S.G. 37 | Times, July 27, 2000 | Judgment
Summary:
Inland Revenue; disclosure; validity of notices to third parties; production of documents; right to privacy
A bank, BIL, challenged the validity of notices served by the Revenue pursuant to the Taxes Management
Act 1970 s.20(3) as part of an investigation into corporate tax avoidance. BIL contended that the notices were
too wide in their ambit, that they infringed the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8, and that
they imposed an unreasonable burden on them. The court held that the width of the notice was justified by
the reasons provided, that the interference with privacy and confidentiality was justified under Art.8(2), and
that BIL had had ample opportunity to make representations prior to the service of the notices which might
have alleviated the burden complained of.
S CC v B
Family Division - [2000] Fam. 76 - 29 July 1999
Subject: Family law; Civil evidence; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2000] Fam. 76 | [2000] 3 W.L.R. 53 | [1999] 7 WLUK 679 | [2000] 2 F.L.R. 161 | [2000] 1 F.C.R. 536 |
[2000] Fam. Law 462
Summary:
children; care proceedings; disclosure sought of expert's reports obtained in criminal proceedings
A father, F, was subject to criminal proceedings in relation to injuries caused to one of his children. Care
proceedings were also commenced by the guardian ad litem appointed in relation to that child. In the criminal
proceedings, F obtained leave to instruct different medical experts from those that had been instructed in
the civil proceedings. The guardian ad litem sought disclosure of the notes and reports of experts who had
been instructed in the criminal proceedings. F contended, in reliance upon R. v Derby Magistrates' Court

Ex p. B [1996] A.C. 487, [1995] 10 WLUK 211, that the experts had been instructed through his solicitors
and therefore their reports were subject to legal professional privilege. The guardian ad litem relied on L (A
Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege), Re [1997] A.C. 16, [1996] 3 WLUK 313 to argue that the welfare
of the child ought to be put first and the reports disclosed.
General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel

Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) - [2000] 1 W.L.R. 272 - 19 July 1999
Subject: Civil evidence
Case Analysis | [2000] 1 W.L.R. 272 | [1999] 3 All E.R. 673 | [1999] 7 WLUK 397 | [1999] C.P.L.R. 425 | [1999] 2 Costs L.R.
10 | [2000] H.R.L.R. 54 | [2000] U.K.H.R.R. 273 | [1999] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 919 | [1999] P.N.L.R. 852 | (1999) 149 N.L.J.
1145 | [1999] N.P.C. 98 | Times, August 12, 1999 | Judgment
Summary:
privilege; disclosure; CPR r.48.7(3) allowing disclosure of privileged communication; rule ultra vires
P was involved in a dispute concerning the acquisition of the majority share holding in GMH and, following
an out of court settlement, GMH made an application for a wasted costs order of GBP 500,000 against P.
During the dispute, GMH had instigated an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and the interviews
between P and the SFO had been carried out in the presence of a representative of M, P's solicitors. In the
wasted costs application, GMH challenged M to produce evidence relating to the SFO investigation and M
applied under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r.48.7(3) for a direction that communications ordinarily subject
to legal privilege could be disclosed to the court and to the other party if the court so directed. P, supported
by the Law Society, opposed the application, contending that r.48.7(3) was ultra vires.
R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Simms

House of Lords - [2000] 2 A.C. 115 - 8 July 1999
Subject: Penology and criminology
Case Analysis | [2000] 2 A.C. 115 | [1999] 3 W.L.R. 328 | [1999] 3 All E.R. 400 | [1999] 7 WLUK 189 | [1999] E.M.L.R. 689
| 7 B.H.R.C. 411 | (1999) 11 Admin. L.R. 961 | [1999] Prison L.R. 82 | [1999] C.O.D. 520 | (1999) 96(30) L.S.G. 28 | (1999)
149 N.L.J. 1073 | (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 212 | Times, July 9, 1999 | Judgment
Summary:
prisoners rights; oral interviews with journalists; fundamental right to free speech
S, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, continued to maintain his innocence and sought assistance
from a journalist to investigate his case. S received several visits from a journalist during which they
discussed a potential appeal. The Secretary of State then introduced a blanket requirement that journalists
sign an undertaking confirming that none of the information obtained in oral interview would be used in
a professional capacity. The journalist visiting S refused to comply and the visits ceased. S successfully
applied for judicial review of the decision to require an undertaking ([1997] E.M.L.R. 261, [1998] C.L.Y.
4084) but the decision was reversed on appeal ([1999] Q.B. 349, [1997] C.L.Y. 2782). The Secretary of State
contended that Prison Service Standing Order 5 of 1996 para.37 and para.37A, made under the Prison Rules
1964 r.33 , permitted a complete ban on interviews by journalists with discretion being exercised to permit
such interviews only in certain...
Paragon Finance Plc (formerly National Home Loans Corp) v Freshfields

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1183 - 11 March 1999
Subject: Negligence
Case Analysis | [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1183 | [1999] 3 WLUK 176 | [2000] C.P. Rep. 81 | [1999] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 446 | (1999)
96(20) L.S.G. 40 | (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 136 | [1999] N.P.C. 33 | Times, March 22, 1999 | Independent, March 16, 1999

Summary:
professional negligence; solicitors; client suing former solicitor; implied waiver of legal professional
privilege applied to confidential communications between client and new solicitors
PF, mortgage lenders, brought an action for damages for professional negligence against F, a firm of solicitors
which had previously represented PF in respect of insurance claims stemming from mortgage defaults. After
F had ceased to act for PF, another firm of solicitors, S&M, had been instructed in the litigation. F, in seeking
to refute the claims of negligence, applied for disclosure of confidential communications between PF, S&M
and counsel relating to the insurance claims litigation. The judge allowed the application, concluding that,
where a client sued his former solicitor for negligence in the handling of a commercial dealing between the
client and a third party, a waiver of legal professional privilege, implied by the bringing of the negligence
proceedings, applied to confidential communications relating to the transaction between the client and the
new solicitors he had instructed to take over the litigation as well as to such communications between the
client and the...
R. v Manchester Crown Court Ex p. Rogers

Queen's Bench Division - [1999] 1 W.L.R. 832 - 2 February 1999
Subject: Criminal evidence
Case Analysis | [1999] 1 W.L.R. 832 | [1999] 4 All E.R. 35 | [1999] 2 WLUK 61 | [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 267 | [1999] Crim.
L.R. 743 | (1999) 96(10) L.S.G. 31 | Times, February 15, 1999 | Independent, February 15, 1999
Summary:
disclosure; privilege; legal professional privilege did not attach to record of client's appointment or time of
attendance
R faced criminal charges after a fatally injured man was found outside his residence. A taxi driver confirmed
that he had taken someone from that area to certain solicitors' offices at the relevant time. R declined to
answer questions and the police were granted an order for production of any record or log of R's arrival time
at the solicitors' offices, but the solicitors confirmed that no such log existed. On a prosecution application for
clarification of the order, the judge made a second order stating that it applied to any record of an appointment,
whether or not it revealed whether R had attended, any attendance note and any record in the form of an
appointments diary. R applied for judicial review of the second order, contending that (1) it was different
from the first and the judge had therefore erred in failing to satisfy himself before making it that the access
conditions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Sch.1 para.2 had been fulfilled, and (2) the order...
Bolkiah v KPMG
House of Lords - [1999] 2 A.C. 222 - 18 December 1998
Subject: Accountancy; Professions
Case Analysis | [1999] 2 A.C. 222 | [1999] 2 W.L.R. 215 | [1999] 1 All E.R. 517 | [1998] 12 WLUK 450 | [1999] 1 B.C.L.C.
1 | [1999] C.L.C. 175 | [1999] P.N.L.R. 220 | (1999) 149 N.L.J. 16 | (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 35 | Times, April 20, 1999 |
Independent, January 12, 1999
Summary:
accountants; conflict of interest; accountants restrained from undertaking investigation which risked
disclosure of confidential information belonging to former client
KPMG had acted as auditors of the Brunei Investment Agency (BIA) since its creation in 1983 and B
had been the chairman of BIA until he was removed from office in March 1998 following a dispute with
his brother, the Sultan of Brunei. KPMG had also been engaged by B between 1996 and 1998 to conduct
an investigation connected with certain litigation in which B was personally involved. KPMG's forensic
accounting department had provided B with litigation support services which had resulted in the department
acquiring a substantial amount of confidential information concerning B's financial affairs. After B's litigation

was settled in March 1998, BIA asked KPMG to assist it in an investigation into the withdrawal of assets
from BIA. Although realising that the investigation might be contrary to B's interests, KPMG accepted
the assignment, putting in place "chinese walls" within the forensic accounting department to protect the
confidential information obtained from B. B appealed against...
R. v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Ex p. Begley

House of Lords (Northern Ireland) - [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1475 - 16 October 1997
Subject: Criminal procedure
Case Analysis | [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1475 | [1997] 4 All E.R. 833 | [1997] N.I. 275 | [1997] 10 WLUK 293 | 3 B.H.R.C. 173 |
(1997) 94(42) L.S.G. 32 | (1997) 147 N.L.J. 1545 | (1997) 141 S.J.L.B. 218 | Times, October 20, 1997 | Judgment
Summary:
police interviews; terrorist suspects had no right to have solicitor present at interviews; Northern Ireland
B appealed against the dismissal of his application for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of the RUC
refusing to allow his solicitor to be present during police interviews following his arrest under the Prevention
of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 s.14(1). B contended that the right to have a solicitor present
during a police interview was an established common law principle analogous to the recognised right of an
accused person to consult with his solicitor privately outside the interview room or, alternatively, that, if no
such principle existed, the House of Lords should now recognise this right on the ground of fairness.
Gotha City v Sotheby's (No.1)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1998] 1 W.L.R. 114 - 19 June 1997
Subject: Civil evidence; Civil procedure; Conflict of laws
Case Analysis | [1998] 1 W.L.R. 114 | [1997] 6 WLUK 337 | (1997) 94(30) L.S.G. 28 | (1997) 141 S.J.L.B. 152 | Times, July
3, 1997
Summary:
Discovery; legal professional privilege; waiver in respect of one party did not amount to waiver of privilege
in respect of whole world
S were custodians of a painting, the ownership of which was to be the subject of a consolidated action in
the High Court. C, who claimed to have owned the painting since 1989, appealed against the dismissal of
their appeal against an order to disclose various documents to the plaintiff, GC, including a copy of a letter
sent from solicitors to C containing legal advice and minutes of a meeting between the two at which legal
advice was given. The judge had found that, because the letter had been copied to S and the meeting had
been attended by S, there had been a waiver of privilege in relation to the whole world.
L (A Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege), Re

House of Lords - [1997] A.C. 16 - 21 March 1996
Subject: Family law
Case Analysis | [1997] A.C. 16 | [1996] 2 W.L.R. 395 | [1996] 2 All E.R. 78 | [1996] 3 WLUK 313 | [1996] 1 F.L.R. 731 |
[1996] 2 F.C.R. 145 | (1996) 32 B.M.L.R. 160 | [1996] Fam. Law 400 | (1996) 160 L.G. Rev. 417 | (1996) 93(15) L.S.G. 30 |
(1996) 146 N.L.J. 441 | (1996) 140 S.J.L.B. 116 | Times, March 22, 1996
Summary:
Care proceedings; confidential information; child ingesting methadone; parents commissioning medical
report; judge ordering disclosure of report to police; report not protected by legal professional privilege
L, whose parents were drug addicts, was admitted to hospital after ingesting methadone. Her mother claimed
L had taken it accidentally. The local authority began care proceedings in respect of L and her brother. The

parents' solicitor, with leave of the court, commissioned a report from a chemical pathologist which cast
doubt on the mother's explanation that L had taken the drug accidentally. A High Court judge ordered that the
report be disclosed to the police, who wished to investigate whether a criminal offence had been committed,
and this ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The mother appealed, contending that the report was
confidential, being protected by legal professional privilege, and also that if it were disclosed her privilege
against self incrimination would be infringed.
R. v Derby Magistrates' Court Ex p. B

House of Lords - [1996] A.C. 487 - 19 October 1995
Case Analysis | [1996] A.C. 487 | [1995] 3 W.L.R. 681 | [1995] 4 All E.R. 526 | [1995] 10 WLUK 211 | [1996] 1 Cr. App.
R. 385 | (1995) 159 J.P. 785 | [1996] 1 F.L.R. 513 | [1996] Fam. Law 210 | (1995) 159 J.P.N. 778 | (1995) 145 N.L.J. 1575 |
(1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 219 | Times, October 25, 1995 | Independent, October 27, 1995
Summary:
Legal profession; privilege; outweighed public interest in securing all available evidence for a criminal
defendant
B told police that he was solely responsible for a murder. He withdrew the statement shortly before his trial,
blaming his stepfather, and was acquitted. At his stepfather's trial, B declined to answer questions about the
instructions he had given to his solicitors at B's trial. Pursuant to the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 s.97 the
stepfather then obtained witness summonses directed to B and B's solicitor requiring production of attendance
notes and proofs of evidence on the basis that the documents were likely to be material evidence within the
meaning of s.97, and that the public interest in securing all relevant evidence for the defence outweighed the
need to protect communications between solicitor and client. The Divisional Court dismissed B's application
for judicial review of the magistrate's decision to issue the witness summons, and B appealed to the House
of Lords.
C (A Minor) v DPP
Subject: Criminal law; Criminal procedure
Case Analysis | [1996] A.C. 1 | [1995] 2 W.L.R. 383 | [1995] 2 All E.R. 43 | [1995] 3 WLUK 246 | [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 166
| (1995) 159 J.P. 269 | [1995] R.T.R. 261 | [1995] 1 F.L.R. 933 | [1995] Crim. L.R. 801 | [1995] Fam. Law 400 | (1995) 159
J.P.N. 248 | (1995) 145 N.L.J. 416 | Times, March 17, 1995 | Independent, March 21, 1995
Summary:
Minors; Doli incapax; boy aged 12; presumption that child incapable of committing a crime; additional
evidence required; whether common law presumption against the public interest
C, a boy aged 12 at the time of the offence, appealed against the Queens Bench Division ruling (Times, March
30, 1994; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 888) that the presumption that children aged 10-14 were "doli incapax" (incapable
of committing a crime) no longer applied. The court had ruled that the common law presumption was
superseded and against the public interest.
R. v Clegg (Lee William)

House of Lords - [1995] 1 A.C. 482 - 19 January 1995
Subject: Criminal law; Criminal procedure
Case Analysis | [1995] 1 A.C. 482 | [1995] 2 W.L.R. 80 | [1995] 1 All E.R. 334 | [1995] 1 WLUK 419 | [1995] 1 Cr. App. R.
507 | [1995] Crim. L.R. 418 | (1995) 92(8) L.S.G. 39 | (1995) 145 N.L.J. 87 | Times, January 25, 1995 | Independent, February
1, 1995

Summary:
Murder; self-defence; excessive force; soldier on duty; soldier shooting and killing civilian while on patrol
in Northern Ireland; whether plea of self-defence capable of reducing culpable homicide from murder to
manslaughter
A soldier or police officer who, in the course of his duty, kills a person by the use of excessive and
unreasonable force in self-defence is guilty of murder, not manslaughter. A was a British soldier stationed
in Northern Ireland. While on patrol at night with other members of his unit a stolen car was stopped at a
vehicle checkpoint. The car accelerated away in the centre of the road, with its headlights full on, towards
A and three other members of the patrol. Someone at the checkpoint shouted to stop the car and A and his
three colleagues opened fire at the approaching car. The driver and a rear seat passenger were killed, the
passenger having been hit in the back by a bullet fired from A's rifle. A was charged with the murder of the
passenger. His defence was that he fired in self-defence. After a trial before a judge alone A was convicted
of murder. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the firing of the
shot which killed the passenger...
Bolton v Law Society

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512 - 6 December 1993
Case Analysis | [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512 | [1994] 2 All E.R. 486 | [1993] 12 WLUK 70 | [1994] C.O.D. 295 | Times, December 8,
1993
Summary:
Disciplinary procedures; appeal from disciplinary tribunal; tribunal's finding of unacceptable but not
dishonest conduct; whether interference with tribunal's decision on appeal appropriate
The Court of Appeal summarised the principles to be applied when determining the appropriate sanction for
lawyers' misconduct, and highlighted the fundamental purpose behind sanctions imposed by the solicitors'
disciplinary tribunal which was to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every
member could be trusted.
New Victoria Hospital v Ryan

Employment Appeal Tribunal - [1992] 12 WLUK 90 - 4 December 1992
Subject: Civil procedure; Civil evidence; Employment
Case Analysis | [1992] 12 WLUK 90 | [1993] I.C.R. 201 | [1993] I.R.L.R. 202 | Times, December 24, 1992
Summary:
Discovery; privilege; legal professional privilege; advice given by personnel consultants; whether privileged
Where proceedings had originally been conducted on advice from personnel consultants, that advice was
not privileged from discovery since it was not covered by legal professional privilege. R complained to a
tribunal of unfair dismissal. Her representatives applied for discovery of documents in the possession of
her employers comprising communications prior to her dismissal between the employers and their advisers,
a firm of personnel consultants. The employers resisted on the ground that the documents attracted legal
professional privilege. The tribunal held that the privilege did not extend to unqualified advice and ordered
disclosure.
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart

House of Lords - [1993] A.C. 593 - 26 November 1992
Subject: Legislation; Tax; Constitutional law

Case Analysis | [1993] A.C. 593 | [1992] 3 W.L.R. 1032 | [1993] 1 All E.R. 42 | [1992] S.T.C. 898 | [1992] 11 WLUK 389 |
[1993] I.C.R. 291 | [1993] I.R.L.R. 33 | [1993] R.V.R. 127 | (1993) 143 N.L.J. 17 | [1992] N.P.C. 154 | Times, November 30,
1992 | Independent, November 26, 1992
Summary:
Statutory interpretation; Reference to parliamentary proceedings
The rule prohibiting references to Parliamentary material by the courts as an aid to the construction of
legislation was relaxed to permit reference where legislative wording was ambiguous, obscure or would lead
to an absurdity; the material relied on consisted of statements by the minister of the Bill together with any
other Parliamentary material necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and the statements
relied on were clear. This case is the basis for the term "Rule in Pepper v Hart".
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners

House of Lords - [1993] A.C. 70 - 20 July 1992
Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [1993] A.C. 70 | [1992] 3 W.L.R. 366 | [1992] 3 All E.R. 737 | [1992] S.T.C. 657 | [1992] 7 WLUK 268
| (1993) 5 Admin. L.R. 265 | 65 T.C. 265 | (1992) 142 N.L.J. 1196 | (1992) 136 S.J.L.B. 230 | Times, July 22, 1992 |
Independent, August 13, 1992 | Guardian, August 19, 1992
Summary:
Ultra vires demand by Revenue; moneys had and received; restitution; whether moneys repayable by Revenue
with interest
The Inland Revenue Commissioners appealed against the decision that payments made by W as a result of a
demand by the Inland Revenue Commissioners under the Income Tax (Building Societies) Regulations 1986,
which were subsequently found to be ultra vires, should be repaid with interest pursuant to the Supreme
Court Act 1981 s.35A from the date of payment and were not just recoverable from the date of the ultra
vires decision.
Campbell v United Kingdom (13590/88)

European Court of Human Rights - [1992] 3 WLUK 369 - 25 March 1992
Subject: Human rights; Penology and criminology
Case Analysis | [1992] 3 WLUK 369 | (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. 137 | Times, April 1, 1992 | Independent, April 16, 1992 |
Guardian, April 2, 1992
Summary:
Right to maintain correspondence; correspondence between prisoner, solicitor and Commission of the
European Communities of Human Rights; whether interference by prison authorities violation of rights
C, a prisoner, complained to the ECHR claiming violations of the European Convention on Human Rights
Art.8 in relation to the opening of correspondence between himself and solicitors by the prison authorities,
and also interference with correspondence to the Commission.
Price Waterhouse v BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA

Chancery Division - [1991] 10 WLUK 405 - 30 October 1991
Case Analysis | [1991] 10 WLUK 405 | [1992] B.C.L.C. 583 | Times, October 30, 1991 | Financial Times, November 1, 1991
Summary:

Discovery; legal professional privilege; reports prepared by company accountants concerning bank loans;
whether privilege attached to such documents
A bank can not claim legal professional privilege in respect of documents prepared by its auditors in the
course of investigating problem loans. Following an inquiry into BCCI by the Bank of England, the company's
accountants were ordered to make available to the court certain reports concerning loans made by the bank.
BCCI claimed legal professional privilege concerning the reports, and sought to suppress them.
R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. TC Coombs & Co

House of Lords - [1991] 2 A.C. 283 - 14 February 1991
Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [1991] 2 A.C. 283 | [1991] 2 W.L.R. 682 | [1991] 3 All E.R. 623 | [1991] S.T.C. 97 | [1991] 2 WLUK 173 |
(1991) 3 Admin. L.R. 501 | 64 T.C. 124 | [1991] C.O.D. 338 | Times, February 15, 1991 | Independent, February 21, 1991 |
Financial Times, February 20, 1991 | Guardian, February 19, 1991
Summary:
Notice to produce documents; power to require information; whether Inland Revenue entitled to refuse to
disclose evidence which led to the application for issue of the notice; whether inspector's notice valid
The Revenue appealed against the decision, (Times, June 1, 1989) to grant judicial review of the issue of
a notice under the Taxes Management Act 1970 s.20(3) requiring TCC, a firm of stockbrokers, to produce
documents concerning the taxpayer under investigation. The Revenue claimed the inspector had formed
the reasonable opinion required to issue the notice and their failure to give reasons for rejecting evidence
submitted by TCC was because of an express undertaking to their source of information not to reveal his
identity. TCC, who had previously employed the taxpayer, contended that the documents requested for
disclosure related to companies with whom the taxpayer had no connection.
Ventouris v Mountain (The Italia Express) (No.1)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1991] 1 W.L.R. 607 - 8 February 1991
Case Analysis | [1991] 1 W.L.R. 607 | [1991] 3 All E.R. 472 | [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 441 | [1991] 2 WLUK 117 | (1991) 141
N.L.J. 237 | Times, February 18, 1991 | Financial Times, February 15, 1991
Summary:
Discovery; legal professional privilege; documents obtained by solicitor; for purpose of actual or
contemplated litigation; documents not previously in possession of party to litigation; whether legal
professional privilege attached
Legal professional privilege did not attach to original documents which had not previously been in the
possession, custody or power of a party and had not come into existence for the purposes of the litigation,
but had been obtained by his solicitor for that purpose. P sought an order that D, who was sued on behalf
of himself and other underwriters, make and serve a further and better list of documents which were in
the custody, possession or power of himself or those who he represented, relating to matters in question in
the action. D resisted the application and claimed that the documents which had not previously been in the
possession, custody or power of D and had not been created for the purpose of the litigation, but which had
been obtained by his solicitor for that purpose, were in any event subject to legal professional privilege. D's
claim to privilege was upheld and P appealed.
R. v Central Criminal Court Ex p. Francis & Francis (A Firm)

House of Lords - [1989] A.C. 346 - 2 November 1988

Case Analysis | [1989] A.C. 346 | [1988] 3 W.L.R. 989 | [1988] 11 WLUK 23 | (1989) 88 Cr. App. R. 213 | [1989] Crim. L.R.
444 | [1989] C.O.D. 231 | (1989) 86(1) L.S.G. 37 | (1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep. 316 | (1988) 132 S.J. 1592
Summary:
Legal privilege; items held with intention of furthering a criminal purpose
Documents held by a solicitor which were intended to be used for a criminal purpose were not subject to
legal privilege. On June 2, 1987 the police obtained an order ex parte under the Drug Trafficking Offences
Act 1986 s.27 for production within seven days of all files held by a firm of solicitors relating to the financial
transactions of one of their clients G. The police believed that he had been given money to buy property by a
person suspected of drug trafficking. On June 12, on an inter partes hearing, the order was narrowed so as to
apply only to a particular property. The solicitors applied for judicial review of the order on the ground that
the material was "subject to legal privilege" as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.10 .
The application was dismissed by the Divisional Court, and by the House of Lords.
Balabel v Air India

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1988] Ch. 317 - 16 March 1988
Case Analysis | [1988] Ch. 317 | [1988] 2 W.L.R. 1036 | [1988] 2 All E.R. 246 | [1988] 3 WLUK 205 | [1988] E.G. 38 (C.S.) |
(1988) 138 N.L.J. Rep. 85 | (1988) 132 S.J. 699 | Judgment
Summary:
Privilege; legal professional privilege; conveyancing transaction; no specific legal advice; whether privileged
When considering a claim to privilege, the court should consider whether the document had been made
confidentially, and for the purpose of giving legal advice, construing the latter requirement broadly; if so it
would be privileged. B sought specific performances of an agreement for an underlease of business premises.
To support his contentions, he sought disclosure of communications between AI and its solicitors, other than
those giving specific legal advice, and attendance notes, working papers and drafts held by the solicitors,
other than those giving specific legal advice. The judge ordered disclosure and AI appealed.
R. v Umoh (Mfongbong)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) - [1986] 11 WLUK 306 - 28 November 1986
Case Analysis | [1986] 11 WLUK 306 | (1987) 84 Cr. App. R. 138 | [1987] Crim. L.R. 258
Summary:
Privilege; conversations with prison officer concerning legal aid application by defendant; admission made
by defendant; whether conversation privileged
Admissions made by a defendant in the course of receiving advice from a prison officer about the substance
of making an application for legal aid should be privileged against disclosure in court on the ground of public
interest. D was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to supply heroin. Part of the evidence against D adduced
at trial was evidence of a principal prison officer about admissions made to him by D whilst D was in prison
awaiting trial. D appealed against his conviction. D claimed that the admissions were made in the course of a
conversation with the prison officer to which privilege attached. D claimed the conversation was privileged
because it concerned D's application for legal aid. D contended that the trial judge erred in refusing his
application to exclude the evidence of the prison officer.

Wilden Pump Engineering Co v Fusfeld

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1984] 10 WLUK 45 - 4 October 1984
Subject: Intellectual property
Case Analysis | [1984] 10 WLUK 45 | [1985] F.S.R. 159 | Judgment
Summary:
Privilege; pleadings; patent agent's advice
In an action for infringement of copyright in design drawings of P's air-operated pumps it became apparent
that D had taken advice from patent agents. D relied upon the defence of innocent copying. P applied for
discovery of the advice of the patent agents. At first instance it was held that (1) legal professional privilege
did not apply to the communications between client and patent agent; (2) discovery should not be ordered
of communications between client and legal advisor.
President of India v La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA (The La Pintada)

House of Lords - [1985] A.C. 104 - 24 May 1984
Subject: Arbitration; Civil procedure; Shipping
Case Analysis | [1985] A.C. 104 | [1984] 3 W.L.R. 10 | [1984] 2 All E.R. 773 | [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 9 | [1984] 5 WLUK 271 |
[1984] C.I.L.L. 110 | (1984) 81 L.S.G. 1999 | (1984) 128 S.J. 414
Summary:
Arbitrators; Arbitrators' powers and duties; Awards of interest; Interest awarded upon sums paid before
conclusion of arbitration
In arbitration, an umpire had no power to award interest on sums paid after the arbitration began but before
it had concluded.
Van der Mussele v Belgium (8919/80)

European Court of Human Rights - [1983] 11 WLUK 238 - 23 November 1983
Subject: Human rights; Legal advice and funding; Employment
Case Analysis | [1983] 11 WLUK 238 | (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 163
Summary:
Human rights; Legal advice and funding; Employment; Conditions of employment; Legal aid; Legal
profession; Remuneration; Vocational training; Forced labour
(1.) Member states. Responsibility of the state. Legal aid. (Art. 6). (2.) Forced or compulsory labour. Acting
without payment. (Art. 4). (3.) Discrimination. Forced or compulsory labour. Advocates. (Art. 14). (4.)
Possessions and Property. Deprivation of. Absence of remuneration or reimbursement of expenses. (Art. 1
Protocol No. 1).
Showboat Entertainment Centre Ltd v Owens

Employment Appeal Tribunal - [1984] 1 W.L.R. 384 - 28 October 1983
Subject: Employment
Case Analysis | [1984] 1 W.L.R. 384 | [1984] 1 All E.R. 836 | [1983] 10 WLUK 237 | [1984] I.C.R. 65 | [1984] I.R.L.R. 7 |
(1983) 80 L.S.G. 3002 | (1984) 134 N.L.J. 37 | (1984) 128 S.J. 152 | Judgment
Summary:
Racial discrimination; dismissal; refusal to obey racialist instruction

Less favourable treatment on racial grounds in the Race Relations Act 1976 s.1(1)(a) includes any case where
the race, whether of the complainant or a third party, is an effective cause of the detriment suffered by the
complainant. O, who was white, was employed to manage an entertainment centre operated by the employers.
He was dismissed for refusing to obey an instruction to exclude all black customers. He complained pursuant
to s.54 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to a tribunal alleging that he had been unlawfully discriminated against
within s.1(1)(a) and 4(2)(c) of the Act. The tribunal held that the instruction was unlawful under s.30 of the Act
and that the dismissal was racial discrimination against the applicant so that he was entitled to compensation.
DORMEUIL Trade Mark

Chancery Division - [1982] 10 WLUK 14 - 5 October 1982
Subject: Civil procedure; Intellectual property
Case Analysis | [1982] 10 WLUK 14 | [1983] R.P.C. 131
Summary:
Discovery; privilege; communications between trade mark agent and client
P and D sold cloth. In 1973 P applied to register DORMEUIL for articles of clothing. In January 1978 D filed
an application for a trade mark, which P opposed. D was at various times represented, not by their solicitors,
but by their trade mark agents. P sought the production of correspondence between D and their agents. D
claimed legal professional privilege for this correspondence.
Australian Mining & Smelting Europe Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (155/79)
European Court of Justice - EU:C:1982:157 - 18 May 1982
Subject: European Union; Legal profession
Case Analysis | EU:C:1982:157 | [1983] Q.B. 878 | [1983] 3 W.L.R. 17 | [1983] 1 All E.R. 705 | [1982] E.C.R. 1575 | [1982] 5
WLUK 119 | [1982] 2 C.M.L.R. 264 | [1982] F.S.R. 474 | (1983) 127 S.J. 410 | Times, May 20, 1982 | EU Decision
Summary:
Restrictive practices; investigation; confidential reports
There is a principle in EC law of legal protection for written communications between lawyer and client
applicable to documents required to be produced in the course of investigation into infringements of
Community rules on competition.
R. v Uljee
[1982] 1 N.Z.L.R. 561 - 1 January 1982
Summary:
WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners

Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [1982] A.C. 300 | [1981] 2 W.L.R. 449 | [1981] 1 All E.R. 865 | [1981] S.T.C. 174 | [1981] 3 WLUK 80 | 54
T.C. 101 | [1982] T.R. 123 | (1981) 11 A.T.R. 752 | (1981) 125 S.J. 220

Summary:
Capital gains; avoidance scheme; settlement; appointment of property
An artificial tax avoidance scheme having no commercial reality and giving rise to no real loss is properly
treated fiscally as a nullity.
Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1981] 1 W.L.R. 529 - 28 January 1981
Case Analysis | [1981] 1 W.L.R. 529 | [1981] 2 All E.R. 485 | [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 138 | [1981] 1 WLUK 690 | (1981) 125
S.J. 203 | Judgment
Summary:
Privilege; waiver
Waiver of privilege of part of an unseverable document constitutes waiver of privilege as to the whole.
Waugh v British Railways Board

Subject: Civil procedure; Civil evidence
Case Analysis | [1980] A.C. 521 | [1979] 3 W.L.R. 150 | [1979] 2 All E.R. 1169 | [1979] 7 WLUK 118 | [1979] I.R.L.R. 364 |
(1979) 123 S.J. 506
Summary:
Privilege; accident inquiry report
An accident report prepared by defendants to a claim for personal injuries may be disclosable unless its
dominant purpose was for it to be used by the defendants' legal advisers. W, a British Rail employee, died
as the result of a collision on their railways. The Board procured a "joint inquiry report" to be prepared,
incorporating witness statements to be sent to the railway inspectorate; such report contained the statement
that it was finally to be sent to the Board's solicitor for his advice. In W's widow's action against the Board,
she sought discovery of the report, but the Board, who denied liability, claimed that it was the subject of legal
professional privilege. Donaldson J. and a majority of the Court of Appeal, upheld such claim.
Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1978] Q.B. 69 - 22 April 1977
Subject: Contracts; Civil procedure
Case Analysis | [1978] Q.B. 69 | [1977] 3 W.L.R. 90 | [1977] 3 All E.R. 498 | [1977] 4 WLUK 77 | (1977) 121 S.J. 406
Summary:
Fundamental breach; onus on bailee to disprove; exclusion clause; construction
A bailee who fails to redeliver goods and who seeks to rely upon a contractual exclusion clause excluding
liability for negligent loss must prove that he was not guilty of fundamental breach of contract. The plaintiff
engaged the defendants to collect and clean a carpet valued at GBP 900. At the time of collection the plaintiff
was required to sign the defendants' order form which contained a number of printed conditions including
that goods were "expressly accepted at the owner's risk," and further limiting the defendants' liability in any
event to GBP 40. Without reading same the plaintiff signed a declaration that he agreed to such terms. The
defendants failed to redeliver the carpet, proffering a series of excuses including that the carpet had been
stolen. The plaintiff obtained judgment for GBP 900, the county court judge rejecting the defence which

relied upon the above exclusion and limitation clauses upon the grounds that the defendants had failed to
prove that the loss was...
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)

House of Lords - [1978] A.C. 171 - 2 February 1977
Case Analysis | [1978] A.C. 171 | [1977] 2 W.L.R. 201 | [1977] 1 All E.R. 589 | [1977] 2 WLUK 13 | 76 L.G.R. 5 | (1977) 121
S.J. 119
Summary:
Discovery; privilege; NSPCC need not reveal identity of informants
Hooker v WJ Adams Estates Pty

High Court (Australia) - [1977] 1 WLUK 232 - 1 January 1977
Subject: Agency
Case Analysis | [1977] 1 WLUK 232 | 138 C.L.R. 52 | (1977) 51 A.L.J.R. 413
Summary:
Estate agents; commission; effective introduction
D owned land; he appointed P, an estate agent, to sell it. P introduced company A to D; A made several
unsuccessful offers to purchase the land for the price asked by D. Meanwhile, D entered into negotiations
with company B which had not been introduced by P, and which was also prepared to meet D's price. While
D was negotiating separately with the two companies, they came to know of each other; in order to avoid
bidding up the price they agreed that whichever of them bought the land, they would complete the purchase
and subsequent development "jointly on a basis of equality." Without knowing of this agreement, D sold the
land to a company formed by company B; company A and company B held an equal number of shares in
the purchaser company.
Wallersteiner v Moir (No.2)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1975] Q.B. 373 - 15 November 1974
Subject: Civil procedure; Company law
Case Analysis | [1975] Q.B. 373 | [1975] 2 W.L.R. 389 | [1975] 1 All E.R. 849 | [1974] 11 WLUK 84 | (1975) 119 S.J. 97
Summary:
Costs; action brought by minority shareholder
In a derivative action brought by a minority shareholder against a director of the company, the shareholder acts
in reality as the agent of the company and is entitled, if there were reasonable grounds for bringing the action,
to be indemnified by the company against the costs thereby incurred. Per curiam. A minority shareholder
bringing a derivative action should, after issuing the writ, apply ex parte to the master for directions so
that the master can decide whether there is a reasonable case for the shareholder to bring at the expense
of the company and approve the continuance of the proceedings until some later stage when the position
can be reviewed. P, a director of two companies, by writ issued in 1967 alleged libel against D, a minority
shareholder; D counterclaimed, joining the companies as defendants, alleging breaches of the Companies
Act 1948 and fraud and breaches of trust against P and claiming orders for payment by P to the companies
of GBP 500,000. P having failed...

Launchbury v Morgans
Subject: Negligence
Case Analysis | [1973] A.C. 127 | [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1217 | [1972] 2 All E.R. 606 | [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 483 | [1972] 5 WLUK
34 | [1972] R.T.R. 406 | (1972) 116 S.J. 396
Summary:
Highways; car driven by another for owner's purposes
In order to fix vicarious liability for the negligence of the driver of a motor-car on the owner of the vehicle, it
must be shown that the driver was using it for the owner's purposes under delegation of a task or duty. When
H and W married they each owned a car, but H sold his car and thereafter the family owned only one car,
which was changed from time to time but always registered in W's name. It was treated as a family car and
was used mainly by H who worked seven miles from the matrimonial home. Occasionally H had a drink on
the way home, and W had asked him not to drive the car himself if he was not sober. On one occasion H had
a great deal to drink, and asked C to drive him home. There were three passengers in the car together with H
when a collision occurred through the negligent driving of C. H and C were killed. The passengers sued W
as owner of the car, claiming that she was vicariously liable for the negligent driving of C.
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd

Subject: Torts
Case Analysis | [1972] A.C. 1027 | [1972] 2 W.L.R. 645 | [1972] 1 All E.R. 801 | [1972] 2 WLUK 97 | (1972) 116 S.J. 199
Summary:
House of Lords; observation of decisions by lower courts; damages; exemplary damages
Decisions of the House of Lords are to be loyally observed by judges of lower courts, including the Court
of Appeal; it is highly undesirable for the Court of Appeal to give gratuitous advice to the judges to ignore
decisions of the House of Lords. The principles laid down in Rookes v Barnard (No.1) [1964] A.C. 1129,
[1964] 1 WLUK 887 as to the award of exemplary damages still stand.
Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (No.2)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1972] 2 Q.B. 102 - 17 February 1972
Subject: Government administration; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [1972] 2 Q.B. 102 | [1972] 2 W.L.R. 835 | [1972] 2 All E.R. 353 | [1972] 2 WLUK 77 | (1972) 116 S.J. 198
Summary:
Discovery; legal professional privilege; Crown privilege
Professional privilege attaches to all communications between officials of a government department, or of a

company, and their legal departments, both in the ordinary course of work, and when litigation is anticipated.
A dispute between the applicant company and the commissioners on the assessment of purchase tax on
machines made by the applicant company was referred to arbitration. When the commissioners served their
list of documents they claimed (1), legal professional privilege for bundles of documents consisting of
communications with their legal department both in the ordinary course of work and for the purposes of the
anticipated arbitration, and (2), Crown privilege for various routine documents, on the grounds, inter alia,
that they contained confidential information given by third parties, and that disclosure would be injurious
to the public interest.

British Railways Board v Herrington

Subject: Negligence
Case Analysis | [1972] A.C. 877 | [1972] 2 W.L.R. 537 | [1972] 1 All E.R. 749 | [1972] 2 WLUK 70 | (1972) 116 S.J. 178
Summary:
Dangerous premises; child trespasser; duty owed by occupier
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

Subject: Torts
Case Analysis | [1970] A.C. 1004 | [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1140 | [1970] 2 All E.R. 294 | [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 453 | [1970] 5
WLUK 19 | (1970) 114 S.J. 375
Summary:
Duty of Care; damage caused by persons escaping from Borstal
Borstal officers owe a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances with a view to preventing
the boys under their control from causing damage to private property. Seven Borstal boys caused damage
to the plaintiffs' yacht for which an action was brought against the Home Office. On the preliminary issue
whether the Home Office owed any duty of care, Thesiger, J. held in the affirmative and the Court of Appeal
dismissed an appeal from his decision.
Pinner v Everett
House of Lords - [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1266 - 29 July 1969
Subject: Road traffic; Criminal evidence
Case Analysis | [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1266 | [1969] 3 All E.R. 257 | [1969] 7 WLUK 132 | (1977) 64 Cr. App. R. 160 | (1969) 133
J.P. 653 | [1970] R.T.R. 3 | (1969) 113 S.J. 674
Summary:
Drinks or drugs; breath test; "driving"
Birmingham Corp v West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc

Subject: Planning
Case Analysis | [1970] A.C. 874 | [1969] 3 W.L.R. 389 | [1969] 3 All E.R. 172 | [1969] 7 WLUK 75 | (1969) 133 J.P. 524 | 67
L.G.R. 571 | (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 1052 | (1969) 113 S.J. 606
Summary:
Compensation; date for assessing equivalent reinstatement value
The relevant date for the assessment "of the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement" was the date on
which the work of reinstatement might reasonably have been commenced. The order for the compulsory
purchase of a chapel was approved by the Minister and registered as a land charge in 1947; a notice to
treat was thus deemed to have been served. Compensation fell to be assessed under the Acquisition of Land
(Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 s.2 r.5. It was agreed that reinstatement could not reasonably have
been started before 1961.

Aik Hoe & Co v Superintendent of Lands and Surveys

Privy Council (Malaysia) - [1969] 1 A.C. 1 - 21 March 1968
Subject: Real property
Case Analysis | [1969] 1 A.C. 1 | [1968] 3 W.L.R. 52 | [1968] 3 WLUK 79 | (1968) 112 S.J. 333
Summary:
Malaysia; compulsory purchase; compensation; "market value"
Duncan (Deceased), Re
Probate, Divorce & Admiralty Division - [1968] P. 306 - 20 March 1968
Subject: Administration of justice
Case Analysis | [1968] P. 306 | [1968] 2 W.L.R. 1479 | [1968] 2 All E.R. 395 | [1968] 3 WLUK 70 | (1968) 112 S.J. 254
Summary:
Discovery; privilege; communications with foreign lawyers
Parry-Jones v Law Society

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [1969] 1 Ch. 1 - 15 November 1967
Case Analysis | [1969] 1 Ch. 1 | [1968] 2 W.L.R. 397 | [1968] 1 All E.R. 177 | [1967] 11 WLUK 55 | (1967) 111 S.J. 910
Summary:
Account; client account; investigation by Law Society; privilege
If the Law Society, under r.11 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1945, decides to investigate a solicitor's
accounts, that solicitor (1) cannot withhold from production books relating to his client account on the ground
of privilege, and (b) is not entitled to details of any complaint which may have institgated the investigation.
The Law Society, acting under r.11 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1945 (made under statutory authority
now contained in the Solicitors Act 1957 s.29 ) ordered the plaintiff solicitor to produce his books of account,
etc., for investigation by the Law Society. The plaintiff sought a declaration (a) that the Law Society was
not entitled to demand production of documents which, relating to clients' affairs, were privileged and (b)
that the rules of natural justice entitled him to particulars of any complaint which might have instigated the
investigation.
Myers (James William) v DPP

House of Lords - [1965] A.C. 1001 - 17 June 1964
Subject: Criminal evidence; Criminal law
Case Analysis | [1965] A.C. 1001 | [1964] 3 W.L.R. 145 | [1964] 2 All E.R. 881 | [1964] 6 WLUK 79 | (1964) 48 Cr. App. R.
348 | (1964) 128 J.P. 481 | (1964) 108 S.J. 519
Summary:
Hearsay; exceptions from rule

Attorney General v Mulholland

Court of Appeal - [1963] 2 Q.B. 477 - 13 February 1963
Case Analysis | [1963] 2 Q.B. 477 | [1963] 2 W.L.R. 658 | [1963] 1 All E.R. 767 | [1963] 2 WLUK 42 | (1963) 107 S.J. 154
Summary:
Discovery; privilege; journalist's source of information
Shaw v DPP
Subject: Criminal law
Case Analysis | [1962] A.C. 220 | [1961] 2 W.L.R. 897 | [1961] 2 All E.R. 446 | [1961] 5 WLUK 20 | (1961) 45 Cr. App. R.
113 | (1961) 125 J.P. 437 | (1961) 105 S.J. 421
Summary:
Obscene publications
A conspiracy to corrupt public morals is a crime at common law. A conspiracy to corrupt public morals by
publishing advertisements of prostitutes is punishable as such in spite of s.2(4) of the Obscene Publications
Act, 1959. A person who publishes such advertisements for gain is also guilty of living on the earnings of
prostitution contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 1959 s.30(1). A person may fairly be said to be living in
whole or in part on the earnings of prostitution if he is paid by prostitutes for goods or services supplied by
him for the purpose of prostitution which he would not supply but for the fact that they were prostitutes. The
appellant conspired with others to publish a magazine containing advertisements by prostitutes (for which
they paid out of their professional earnings) inviting perverted practices as well as ordinary intercourse, and
the appellant sold copies of the magazine.
Chantrey Martin & Co v Martin

Court of Appeal - [1953] 2 Q.B. 286 - 14 July 1953
Subject: Civil procedure; Accountancy
Case Analysis | [1953] 2 Q.B. 286 | [1953] 3 W.L.R. 459 | [1953] 2 All E.R. 691 | [1953] 7 WLUK 59 | 46 R. & I.T. 516 | 38
A.L.R.2d 663 | (1953) 97 S.J. 539
Summary:
Discovery; accountants' notes
The relationship between a firm of accountants and a company whose accounts the firm audits being that
of professional man and client and not that of agent and principal, notes prepared by the accountants for
the purpose of producing a balance sheet for audit purposes are their property and not the company's, and
the fact that the documents embody information which is the subject of professional confidence between
the accountants and their clients is not a sufficient ground for refusing to produce the notes in discovery
in litigation between the accountants and a third party. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of his
contract of service, and he claimed that he had been wrongfully dismissed. In his particulars he alleged that in
auditing the books of a company, a client of the plaintiffs, he discovered certain irregularities in the company's
audited accounts for a previous year, that he reported the irregularities to the senior partner of the plaintiffs,
and that the senior...

Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd

Subject: Hospitality and leisure
Case Analysis | [1949] A.C. 530 | [1949] 2 All E.R. 452 | 65 T.L.R. 471 | [1949] 7 WLUK 111 | [1949] L.J.R. 1383 | (1949) 93
S.J. 587
Summary:
Contract; fresh promise
New Plymouth BC v Taranaki Electric-Power Board

Privy Council (New Zealand) - [1933] A.C. 680 - 27 July 1933
Subject: Local government; Utilities; Legislation
Case Analysis | [1933] A.C. 680 | [1933] 7 WLUK 62
Summary:
Local government; Utilities; Legislation; Electricity supply industry; Local authorities' powers and duties;
New Zealand; Statutory interpretation
Donoghue v Stevenson
House of Lords (Scotland) - [1932] A.C. 562 - 26 May 1932
Subject: Negligence; Torts; Consumer law
Case Analysis | [1932] A.C. 562 | 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31 | 1932 S.L.T. 317 | [1932] 5 WLUK 41 | [1932] W.N. 139
Summary:
Duty of care; Proximity; Persons to whom duty of care owed by manufacturer
Manufacturers could owe a duty of care to consumers in negligence even if no contract existed between the
consumer and the manufacturer.
Minter v Priest
Subject: Defamation; Civil evidence
Summary:
Defamation; Civil evidence; Disclosure; Privilege; Solicitors
Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England

Court of Appeal - [1924] 1 K.B. 461 - 17 December 1923
Subject: Banking and finance; Contracts
Case Analysis | [1924] 1 K.B. 461 | [1923] 12 WLUK 61
Summary:
Banking and finance; Contracts; Banker-customer relationship; Confidentiality; Disclosure; Implied terms

United Mining & Finance Corp Ltd v Becher

King's Bench Division - [1910] 2 K.B. 296 - 20 April 1910
Subject: Legal profession; Civil procedure
Case Analysis | [1910] 2 K.B. 296 | [1910] 4 WLUK 53
Summary:
Legal profession; Civil procedure; Courts; Jurisdiction; Solicitors; Third parties; Undertakings
Jones v Great Central Railway Co

House of Lords - [1910] A.C. 4 - 2 April 1909
Subject: Civil procedure; Employment
Summary:
Civil procedure; Employment; Discovery; Legal representation; Privilege; Trade unions; Wrongful dismissal
Mosely v Victoria Rubber Co

(1886) 55 L.T. 482, [1886] 1 WLUK 4 - 1 January 1886
Summary:
Wheeler v Le Marchant
Court of Appeal - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 675 - 6 April 1881
Subject: Civil procedure; Construction law
Case Analysis | (1881) 17 Ch. D. 675 | [1881] 4 WLUK 15
Summary:
Civil procedure; Construction law; Confidential information; Construction contracts; Discovery; Letters;
Privilege
Slade v Tucker
Chancery Division - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 824 - 23 April 1880
Summary:
Civil procedure; Civil evidence; Agents; Causes of action; Heraldry; Privilege

Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co v Quick

Court of Appeal - (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 315 - 20 February 1878
Subject: Civil procedure; Company law
Case Analysis | (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 315 | [1878] 2 WLUK 71
Summary:
Civil procedure; Company law; Discovery; Good faith; Legal advice privilege; Solicitors
Anderson v Bank of British Columbia

Court of Appeal - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 644 - 30 March 1876
Subject: Civil procedure; Banking and finance; Civil evidence
Summary:
Civil procedure; Banking and finance; Civil evidence; Agents; Discovery; Letters; Principals; Privilege
Smith v Daniell
Court of Chancery - (1874) L.R. 18 Eq. 649 - 9 July 1874
Case Analysis | (1874) L.R. 18 Eq. 649 | [1874] 7 WLUK 37
Summary:
Civil procedure; Civil evidence; Confidentiality; Discovery; Legal advice privilege
Macfarlan v Rolt
Court of Chancery - (1872) L.R. 14 Eq. 580 - 6 July 1872
Case Analysis | (1872) L.R. 14 Eq. 580 | [1872] 7 WLUK 32
Summary:
Civil procedure; Agents; Defendants; Disclosure; Legal advice privilege; Solicitors
Wentworth v Lloyd
House of Lords - 11 E.R. 1154 - 27 May 1864
Case Analysis | 11 E.R. 1154 | (1864) 10 H.L. Cas. 589 | [1864] 5 WLUK 72 | (1864) 33 L.J. Ch. 688 | (1864) 10 L.T. 767
Summary:

Lawrence v Campbell
Court of Queen's Bench - 62 E.R. 186 - 7 March 1859
Case Analysis | 62 E.R. 186 | (1859) 4 Drew. 485 | [1859] 3 WLUK 24
Summary:
Calley v Richards
Court of Chancery - 52 E.R. 406 - 10 July 1854
Case Analysis | 52 E.R. 406 | (1854) 19 Beav. 401 | [1854] 7 WLUK 50
Summary:
McCowan v Wright
Court of Session (Inner House, Second Division) - (1852) 15 D. 229 - 14 December 1852
Case Analysis | (1852) 15 D. 229 | [1852] 12 WLUK 66
Summary:
Greenough v Gaskell
Court of Chancery - 39 E.R. 618 - 31 January 1833
Case Analysis | 39 E.R. 618 | (1833) 1 My. & K. 98 | [1833] 1 WLUK 442
Summary:
Wright, &c. v Arthur

Court of Session (Inner House, Second Division) - (1831) 10 S. 139 - 15 December 1831
Case Analysis | (1831) 10 S. 139 | [1831] 12 WLUK 56
Summary:

Duchess of Kingston's Case, Re

Crown Cases Reserved - 168 E.R. 175 - 1 January 1776
Case Analysis | 168 E.R. 175 | (1776) 20 St. Tr. 619 | (1776) 20 St. Tr. 355 | (1776) 20 St. Tr. 335 | (1776) 1 Leach 146 |
(1776) 2 Smith L.C. 644 | [1776] 1 WLUK 2
Summary:
M'Leod v M'Leod.
Court of Session - (1744) Mor. 16754 - 21 December 1744
Case Analysis | (1744) Mor. 16754 | [1744] 12 WLUK 31
Summary:
Earl of Northesk v George Cheyn.

Court of Session - (1680) Mor. 353 - 15 July 1680
Summary:
Creditors of Wamphray v Lady Wamphray.

Court of Session - (1675) Mor. 347 - 21 December 1675
Summary:
Dennis v Codrington
Case Analysis | 21 E.R. 53 | (1580) Cary 100 | [1580] 1 WLUK 2
Summary:

Berd v Lovelace
Case Analysis | 21 E.R. 33 | (1577) Cary 62 | [1577] 1 WLUK 1
Summary:
Key Cases Citing
APPLIED
PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov
Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) - [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm) - 11 September 2020
Subject: Civil evidence; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm) | [2021] 1 W.L.R. 403 | [2021] 2 All E.R. 224 | [2021] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 450 |
[2020] 9 WLUK 119 | Judgment
Summary:
Civil evidence; Legal profession; Legal advice privilege; In-house lawyers; Foreign lawyers; Russia
Legal advice privilege extended to communications with foreign lawyers whether or not they were "in-
house" and thus employees of a particular company. The only requirement in order for legal advice privilege
to attach was that the adviser should be acting in the capacity or function of a lawyer; there was no
additional requirement that foreign lawyers should be "appropriately qualified" or recognised or regulated
as "professional lawyers".
FOLLOWED
Glasgow (Bankruptcy Trustee) v ELS Law Ltd
Chancery Division (Companies Court) - [2017] EWHC 3004 (Ch) - 28 November 2017
Subject: Insolvency; Insurance
Case Analysis | [2017] EWHC 3004 (Ch) | [2018] 1 W.L.R. 1564 | [2017] 11 WLUK 663 | [2018] 1 B.C.L.C. 339 | [2018] 1
Costs L.O. 79 | [2018] B.P.I.R. 431 | [2018] P.N.L.R. 11 | Judgment
Summary:
Creditors; Insurers; insurer funding insolvenct company's damages claim; payment of premiums; priorities
It was for the legislature, not the courts, to decide whether insurers who had funded an insolvent company's
successful claim for damages should be entitled to priority payment of their premiums ahead of unsecured
and preferential creditors, by analogy with solicitors' liens. It would be inappropriate for the courts to so
extend the law in relation to solicitors' liens given that it would create an exception to the statutory regime
for the distribution of the assets of an insolvent debtor among its creditors.
APPLIED
GW v Information Commissioner
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) - [2014] UKUT 130 (AAC) - 11 March 2014
Subject: Environment; Nuisance; Local government
Case Analysis | [2014] UKUT 130 (AAC) | [2014] 3 WLUK 249 | Judgment

Summary:
Legal professional privilege; Disclosure; Local authority receiving legal advice; Disclosing contents to third
party on confidential basis; Ability of third party to rely on legal professional privilege to resist disclosure
The First-tier Tribunal had erred in holding that a local authority's disclosure of advice subject to legal
professional privilege (LPP) would have an adverse effect on the course of justice by weakening the doctrine
of LPP, and that the exception in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 reg.12(5)(b) therefore
applied to an application to the Information Commissioner for disclosure of that advice.
All Cases Citing
MENTIONED BY
Recovery Partners GP Ltd v Rukhadze
Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) - [2021] EWHC 1621 (Comm) - 14 June 2021
Subject: Civil procedure; Torts; Civil evidence; Succession
Case Analysis | [2021] EWHC 1621 (Comm) | [2021] 6 WLUK 638 | Judgment
Summary:
Civil procedure; Torts; Civil evidence; Succession; Disclosure; Legal advice privilege; Redaction;
Proportionality; Breach of fiduciary duty; Intestacy
The court determined interlocutory issues in relation to disclosure in a claim involving a disagreement as to
who was to be employed in helping the family of a deceased person to rediscover his assets after his death.
The trial of the matter was due to be heard over a six-week period starting in mid-October 2021.
MENTIONED BY
OMI Facilities Ltd v Singh
Court of Session (Outer House) - [2021] CSOH 45 - 5 May 2021
Case Analysis | [2021] CSOH 45 | [2021] 5 WLUK 12 | 2021 G.W.D. 16-231 | Judgment
Summary:
Civil procedure; Scotland; Guarantees; Interest rates; Fairness; Loan agreements
A businessman who had entered into a personal bond guaranteeing high risk short term loans was liable
to repay the principal sum to the creditor. The bond's high interest rate was justified in order to protect
a legitimate interest of the creditor, it was entered into freely as a commercial transaction between two
experienced businessmen, and it did not give rise to unfairness under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.140A.
APPLIED
PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov
Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) - [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm) - 11 September 2020
Subject: Civil evidence; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm) | [2021] 1 W.L.R. 403 | [2021] 2 All E.R. 224 | [2021] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 450 |
Summary:
Civil evidence; Legal profession; Legal advice privilege; In-house lawyers; Foreign lawyers; Russia

Legal advice privilege extended to communications with foreign lawyers whether or not they were "in-
house" and thus employees of a particular company. The only requirement in order for legal advice privilege
to attach was that the adviser should be acting in the capacity or function of a lawyer; there was no
additional requirement that foreign lawyers should be "appropriately qualified" or recognised or regulated
as "professional lawyers".
MENTIONED BY
R. (on the application of Driver) v Rhondda Cynon Taf CBC
Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) - [2020] EWHC 2071 (Admin) - 30 July 2020
Subject: Education; Legislation
Case Analysis | [2020] EWHC 2071 (Admin) | [2020] 7 WLUK 459 | Judgment
Summary:
Education; Legislation; Welsh language; Schools; Sixth form colleges; Statutory interpretation; Wales;
Reorganisation; Delay; Consultation
A proposal concerning the establishment or closure of a school would affect sixth-form provision within the
meaning of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 s.50 irrespective of whether the school
in question was a sixth-form college or a secondary school which also provided sixth-form education.
MENTIONED BY
Sports Direct International Plc v Financial Reporting Council
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2020] EWCA Civ 177 - 18 February 2020
Subject: Civil procedure; Professions; Accountancy; Financial regulation
Case Analysis | [2020] EWCA Civ 177 | [2020] 2 W.L.R. 1256 | [2020] 4 All E.R. 552 | [2020] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1027 |
[2020] 2 WLUK 196 | [2021] Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 181 | Times, May 6, 2020 | Judgment
Summary:
Disclosure; Legal professional privilege; Financial reporting; Auditors
Where the Financial Reporting Council gave notice to a company requesting disclosure pursuant to
the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016 Sch.2 para.1 in the course of an
investigation into the conduct of the company's auditors, the company did not have to disclose emails or
attachments to those emails which were covered by legal professional privilege. However, attachments which
did not themselves meet the criteria of relating to the audit, falling within specific date ranges, being held
by identified custodians and responding to specified search terms were not protected by privilege and had
to be disclosed.
MENTIONED BY
R. (on the application of Jet2.com Ltd) v Civil Aviation Authority
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2020] EWCA Civ 35 - 28 January 2020
Subject: Civil evidence; Aviation
Case Analysis | [2020] EWCA Civ 35 | [2020] Q.B. 1027 | [2020] 2 W.L.R. 1215 | [2020] 4 All E.R. 374 | [2020] 1 WLUK
208 | Times, March 20, 2020 | Judgment
Summary:
Legal advice privilege; Dominant purpose; Air carriers; Email

Though the jurisprudence was far from straightforward and authorities did not speak with a single clear voice,
a claim for legal advice privilege required the proponent of the privilege to show that the relevant document
or communication was created or sent for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.
MENTIONED BY
Curless v Shell International Ltd
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2019] EWCA Civ 1710 - 22 October 2019
Subject: Employment; Civil evidence; Administration of justice
Case Analysis | [2019] EWCA Civ 1710 | [2019] 10 WLUK 297 | [2020] I.C.R. 431 | [2020] I.R.L.R. 36 | Judgment
Summary:
Legal advice privilege; Solicitor's advice to employer; Redundancy
A lawyer's email advising an employer in relation to an employee's possible redundancy was protected
by legal advice privilege when the employee sought to rely on the email to bring a claim of disability
discrimination and victimisation. Properly interpreted, the email contained the sort of conventional advice
which employment lawyers gave regularly in cases where an employer wished to consider for redundancy an
employee who was regarded as underperforming. That was not advice to act in an underhand or iniquitous
way.
MENTIONED BY
Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - [2019] EWCA Civ 1600 - 2 October 2019
Subject: Civil evidence; Company law; Administration of justice; Civil procedure; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2019] EWCA Civ 1600 | [2020] Ch. 243 | [2019] 3 W.L.R. 1255 | [2020] 1 All E.R. 124 | [2019] 10 WLUK
10 | [2020] 1 B.C.L.C. 15 | [2020] Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 1 | [2020] P.N.L.R. 4 | Times, January 7, 2019 | Judgment
Summary:
Legal advice privilege; Waiver; Disclosure; Solicitors' powers and duties
Legal advice privilege attaching to communications between a client and their lawyers, once established,
remained in existence unless and until it was waived. It was established as a result of the purpose for which,
and the circumstances in which, the communications had been made. It was not lost if there was no person
entitled to assert it when a disclosure request was made.
MENTIONED BY
Whitehouse v Lord Advocate
Case Analysis | [2019] CSOH 38 | 2019 S.C. 571 | 2019 S.L.T. 573 | 2019 S.C.L.R. 941 | [2019] 5 WLUK 107 | 2019 G.W.D.
16-244 | Judgment
Summary:
Legal advice privilege; Lord Advocate; Confidential envelope
The Lord Advocate was entitled to assert legal advice privilege in relation to the contents of a sealed envelope
which amounted to a confidential discussion between an advocate depute and Crown Office and Procurator
Fiscal Service officials of the application of the law applicable to the available facts in an instant case.

MENTIONED BY
UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd
Chancery Division - [2019] EWHC 914 (Ch) - 9 April 2019
Case Analysis | [2019] EWHC 914 (Ch) | [2019] 3 All E.R. 698 | [2019] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 910 | [2019] Bus. L.R. 1500 |
Summary:
Disclosure; Pilot schemes; Business and Property Courts; Commencement
CPR PD 51U, the disclosure pilot for the Business and Property Courts, applied to all proceedings existing
when it commenced on 1 January 2019, unless specifically excluded, even where an initial disclosure order
had been made before that date.
MENTIONED BY
Financial Reporting Council Ltd v Sports Direct International Plc
Chancery Division - [2018] EWHC 2284 (Ch) - 11 September 2018
Subject: Financial regulation; Civil evidence; Civil procedure
Case Analysis | [2018] EWHC 2284 (Ch) | [2019] 2 All E.R. 974 | [2018] 9 WLUK 87 | [2018] Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 672 |
Judgment
Summary:
Financial regulation; Civil evidence; Civil procedure; Permission to appeal; Waiver; Disclosure; Legal
professional privilege; Indemnity basis; Costs orders; Conduct; Non-compliance; Accountants; Advice;
Regulatory bodies
The Financial Reporting Council, which was the regulatory body responsible for conducting investigations
into statutory auditors, was granted an order requiring a company to disclose certain documents pursuant to
the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016 Sch.2 para.2 and reg.10. The production
of documents to the regulator solely for the purposes of that confidential investigation was not an infringement
of the company's legal professional privilege.
MENTIONED BY
DAC Beachcroft LLP v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) - [2018] UKFTT 502 (TC) - 6 September 2018
Subject: Tax; Legal profession; Real property; Company law
Case Analysis | [2018] UKFTT 502 (TC) | [2018] 9 WLUK 66 | Judgment
Summary:
Tax; Legal profession; Real property; Company law; Corporation tax; Information notices; Acquisition of
property; Third party notices; Solicitors; Conveyancing; Offshore companies; Legal professional privilege
MENTIONED BY
R. (on the application of Emblin) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) - [2018] EWHC 626 (Admin) - 23 March 2018
Subject: Tax
Case Analysis | [2018] EWHC 626 (Admin) | [2018] S.T.C. 934 | [2018] 3 WLUK 587 | [2018] B.T.C. 15 | [2018] S.T.I. 785 |
Judgment
Summary:

Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes; Confidentiality; HMRC; Breach of confidence
HMRC were entitled to read and make use of information disclosed by an independent financial advisor to
two tax schemes where the disclosures had been voluntary and not induced. In any event under the Finance
Act 2004 s.316B, HMRC were permitted to receive the disclosures.
FOLLOWED
Glasgow (Bankruptcy Trustee) v ELS Law Ltd
Chancery Division (Companies Court) - [2017] EWHC 3004 (Ch) - 28 November 2017
Subject: Insolvency; Insurance
Case Analysis | [2017] EWHC 3004 (Ch) | [2018] 1 W.L.R. 1564 | [2017] 11 WLUK 663 | [2018] 1 B.C.L.C. 339 | [2018] 1
Costs L.O. 79 | [2018] B.P.I.R. 431 | [2018] P.N.L.R. 11 | Judgment
Summary:
Creditors; Insurers; insurer funding insolvenct company's damages claim; payment of premiums; priorities
It was for the legislature, not the courts, to decide whether insurers who had funded an insolvent company's
successful claim for damages should be entitled to priority payment of their premiums ahead of unsecured
and preferential creditors, by analogy with solicitors' liens. It would be inappropriate for the courts to so
extend the law in relation to solicitors' liens given that it would create an exception to the statutory regime
for the distribution of the assets of an insolvent debtor among its creditors.
MENTIONED BY
Beggs v Scottish Ministers
Court of Session (Outer House) - [2017] CSOH 99 - 6 July 2017
Subject: Civil procedure; Penology and criminology
Case Analysis | [2017] CSOH 99 | [2017] 7 WLUK 103 | 2017 G.W.D. 22-359 | Judgment
Summary:
Civil procedure; Penology and criminology; Scotland; Permission; Judicial review; Prisoners; Letters;
Privileged communications; Prisoners' rights; Right to respect for private and family life
A serving life prisoner was allowed permission to proceed with his petition for judicial review in so far as he
contended that the opening by the Scottish Prison Service of his correspondence from a particular body, while
an undertaking was in place that that would not be done, was unlawful and breached his legitimate expectation
that such correspondence would be treated as privileged, and that, the non-designation of correspondence
between prisoners and regulatory bodies of the legal professions in other parts of the United Kingdom as
confidential was irrational, quoad ultra, permission was refused.
MENTIONED BY
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd
Queen's Bench Division - [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) - 8 May 2017
Subject: Criminal evidence; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) | [2017] 1 W.L.R. 4205 | [2017] 5 WLUK 159 | [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. 24 | [2017]
Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 330 | [2018] Crim. L.R. 63 | Judgment
Summary:
Legal professional privilege; Litigation privilege; Claim for litigation privilege and legal advice privilege in
criminal litigation

The court considered, for the first time, the circumstances in which litigation privilege and legal advice
privilege could arise against a background of potential criminal litigation rather than civil litigation.
MENTIONED BY
Holman Fenwick Willan LLP v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow
High Court of Justiciary - [2017] HCJAC 38 - 5 February 2016
Subject: Criminal procedure; Civil evidence
Case Analysis | [2017] HCJAC 38 | 2017 J.C. 239 | 2017 S.L.T. 899 | 2017 S.C.L. 676 | 2017 S.C.C.R. 309 | [2016] 2 WLUK
190 | 2017 G.W.D. 19-298 | Judgment
Summary:
Search warrants; Legal professional privilege; Documents subject to ongoing dispute about privilege
Summary: Where a search warrant had been obtained for material over which there was an ongoing dispute
about legal privilege, with no suggestion that the relevant solicitors' firm were involved in any form of
illegality or any averment that it would be likely to destroy or conceal the relevant material, the application
for the warrant, without intimation, was oppressive. The warrant was further oppressive on the basis that its
terms were too wide.
MENTIONED BY
Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
Chancery Division - [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch) - 8 June 2015
Subject: Civil evidence; Banking and finance
Case Analysis | [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch) | [2016] 1 W.L.R. 361 | [2015] 6 WLUK 229 | [2015] 2 B.C.L.C. 401 | Judgment
Summary:
Disclosure; Without prejudice communications; Financial Conduct Authority investigation; Right to withold
disclosure of communications forming part of settlement discussions
The subject of a Financial Conduct Authority investigation had a right to withhold inspection of
communications that were part of genuine settlement discussions between them and the authority by analogy
with the without prejudice rule. However, if the basis on which a final notice was decided was itself in issue in
civil proceedings, for example if the subject positively relied on what was absent from the notice, the content
of those settlement discussions would be admissible evidence.
MENTIONED BY
Taylor Made Consulting Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) - [2014] UKFTT 903 (TC) - 18 July 2014
Subject: Tax; Civil procedure; Legal profession
Summary:
Tax; Civil procedure; Legal profession; Financial advisers; Unreasonable conduct; Information notices; Legal
professional privilege; In-house lawyers; Costs between the parties
Communications between the employer of an in-house solicitor and the employer's clients were not legally
privileged, even if they had been produced by the employed solicitor. Only communications between an
in-house solicitor and his employer were potentially subject to legal advice privilege. The Revenue were
awarded costs against a wealth management company which had acted unreasonably in asserting privilege.

MENTIONED BY
Alimadadian v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) - [2014] UKFTT 641 (TC) - 27 June 2014
Subject: Tax
Summary:
Tax; Information notices; Legal advice; Costs; Appeals; Legal professional privilege; Unreasonable conduct
Revenue and Customs were entitled, pursuant to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber)
Rules 2009 r.10(1)(b), to recover their costs of opposing an appeal against an information notice which had
been served on the appellant: the appellant had relied on legal professional privilege in challenging the notice,
but his representative had acted unreasonably by failing to conduct a proper analysis of the evidence and
law relating to that issue.
MENTIONED BY
R P Baker (Oxford) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) - [2014] UKFTT 420 (TC) - 9 May 2014
Summary:
Civil procedure; Service; Extensions of time; Appeals; Unreasonable conduct; Breakdowns of costs
The Revenue and Customs Commissioners were awarded costs where a taxpayer's conduct in bringing an
appeal against a penalty for failure to comply with an information notice had been unreasonable as it had
no prospect of success.
APPLIED
GW v Information Commissioner
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) - [2014] UKUT 130 (AAC) - 11 March 2014
Subject: Environment; Nuisance; Local government
Case Analysis | [2014] UKUT 130 (AAC) | [2014] 3 WLUK 249 | Judgment
Summary:
Legal professional privilege; Disclosure; Local authority receiving legal advice; Disclosing contents to third
party on confidential basis; Ability of third party to rely on legal professional privilege to resist disclosure
The First-tier Tribunal had erred in holding that a local authority's disclosure of advice subject to legal
professional privilege (LPP) would have an adverse effect on the course of justice by weakening the doctrine
of LPP, and that the exception in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 reg.12(5)(b) therefore
applied to an application to the Information Commissioner for disclosure of that advice.
MENTIONED BY
Tchenguiz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Non-Party Disclosure)
Queen's Bench Division - [2013] EWHC 2297 (QB) - 26 July 2013
Case Analysis | [2013] EWHC 2297 (QB) | [2013] 7 WLUK 836 | Judgment
Summary:

Non-party disclosure; Disclosure sought of accountants' reports relied on by Serious Fraud Office when
obtaining search warrants
The claimants, who were pursuing an action against the Serious Fraud Office in which they were claiming
losses arising from the issue of search warrants, were entitled to an order for non-party disclosure in respect
of accountants' reports on which the Serious Fraud Office had relied when obtaining the warrants; the
requirements of the CPR r.31.17 were met and the reports were not protected by litigation privilege.
MENTIONED BY
Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA, Re
Chancery Division (Companies Court) - [2013] 7 WLUK 774 - 24 July 2013
Subject: Insolvency; Civil procedure; Conflict of laws; Civil evidence
Case Analysis | [2013] 7 WLUK 774 | [2013] B.P.I.R. 756 | Judgment
Summary:
Liquidation; Disclosure; Disclosure sought of documents belonging and relating to Luxembourg company;
Appropriate law for determining issues of legal professional privilege
In an application by the liquidators of a company incorporated in Luxembourg for the production of

documents belonging and relating to that company, English law was to be applied when deciding whether
a document was protected from inspection by reason of legal professional privilege, "main insolvency
proceedings" having been opened here.
MENTIONED BY
Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest
Supreme Court - [2013] UKSC 34 - 12 June 2013
Subject: Family law; Company law
Case Analysis | [2013] UKSC 34 | [2013] 2 A.C. 415 | [2013] 3 W.L.R. 1 | [2013] 4 All E.R. 673 | [2013] 6 WLUK 283 |
[2013] B.C.C. 571 | [2014] 1 B.C.L.C. 30 | [2013] 2 F.L.R. 732 | [2013] 3 F.C.R. 210 | [2013] W.T.L.R. 1249 | [2013] Fam.
Law 953 | (2013) 163(7565) N.L.J. 27 | (2013) 157(24) S.J.L.B. 37 | Times, June 24, 2013 | Judgment
Summary:
Financial orders; Transfer of property orders; Order for transfer to wife of property held by company operated
and controlled by husband; Lifting corporate veil
The doctrine of English law which enabled the courts in very limited circumstances to pierce the corporate
veil was only to be invoked where a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to
an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evaded or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrated by
interposing a company under his control.
MENTIONED BY
Frank Houlgate Investment Co Ltd v Biggart Baillie LLP
Subject: Negligence; Legal profession
Case Analysis | [2013] CSOH 80 | 2013 S.L.T. 993 | [2013] 5 WLUK 707 | [2013] P.N.L.R. 25 | 2013 G.W.D. 20-407 |
Judgment
Summary:
Professional negligence; Solicitors; Failure to withdraw from acting for client upon discovery of client's
fraud; Whether acting in furtherance of fraud

A solicitors' firm was found liable in reparation to an investment company as an accessory to fraud where
its director had failed to dissociate himself from a client's continuing fraud upon it coming to his attention
by failing to withdraw from acting for that client and to warn the party subject to the fraud thereof and had
thereby acted in furtherance of the fraud which had caused loss.
Key Legislation Cited
Legal Services Act 2007 (c.29)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20
Legislation Cited
Administration of Justice Act 1985 (c.61) s.33
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48) s.63
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c.41)
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c.41) s.21
Criminal Justice Act 1987 (c.38) s.2
Directive 2001/97
ECHR
ECHR art.6
ECHR art.8
ECHR art.14
European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) s.2(2)
European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) s.2(4)
Finance Act 1976 (c.40)
Finance Act 1976 (c.40) s.99

Finance Act 1976 (c.40) Sch.6
Finance Act 1988 (c.39) s.126(4)
Finance Act 1989 (c.26) s.142
Finance Act 1989 (c.26) s.144(7)
Finance Act 2000 (c.17) s.149(1)
Finance Act 2004 (c.12) Pt 7
Finance Act 2008 (c.9) Sch.36 para.23
Finance Act 2008 (c.9) Sch.36 para.24
Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42)
Inland Revenue Act 1880 (c.20)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (c.40) s.22
Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 16)
Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 16) s.3
Legal Services Act 2007 (c.29)
Legal Services Act 2007 (c.29) s.3
Legal Services Act 2007 (c.29) s.190(1)
Licensed Legal Services (Specification of Regulated Professions) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/213)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29)

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) s.330
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) s.330(6)(b)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) s.330(10)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) s.330(14)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) s.336
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Money Laundering Regulations 2003 (Amendment) Order 2006 (SI 2006/308)
Solicitors Act 1974 (c.47) s.50
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20(1)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20(1)(a)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20A
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20A(1)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20B
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20B(1)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20BA
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) s.20D(2)

Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) Sch.1AA para.5
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) Sch.1AA para.5(1)
Taxes Management Act 1970 (c.9) Sch.1A para.5(1)
Trade Marks Act 1994 (c.26) s.75
Trade Marks Act 1994 (c.26) s.87
Commentary References
Books
Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice 2021 Ed.

Chapter 12 - Privilege, Public Interest Immunity and Disclosure
12-10 Legal advice privilege
Archbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice 2021

Chapter 13 - Evidence
13-116
Banking Litigation, 4th Ed.

Chapter 10 - Disclosure Issues
Section 6. - Disclosure Under Compulsion by Law: Privilege
Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2021

Chapter F10 - Privilege
Legal Professional Privilege
Building Contract Disputes

Chapter 12 Disclosure, E-Disclosure and Technology
Inadvertent Disclosure and Inspection
Building Contract Disputes

Chapter 12 Disclosure, E-Disclosure and Technology
Is Adjudication “Litigation” for the Purposes of Claiming Litigation Privilege?
CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts 9th Ed.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48)
Commentary on Section 280
Civil Evidence for Practitioners 4th Ed.

Chapter 5 - Disclosure II—Disclosure and Privilege
Legal Advice Privilege
Commercial Litigation: Pre-Emptive Remedies

Chapter F6 - Commercial Pre-Emptive Measures Directed at Evidence

F6-023
Toulson & Phipps on Confidentiality 4th Ed.

Chapter 18 - Legal Professional Privilege and Confidence
The Scope and Depth of the Protection Afforded by Privilege
Confiscation and Civil Recovery 1st Ed.

Chapter 11 - Investigatory Orders in Relation to Confiscation Investigations
The Code of Practice
Disclosure 5th Ed.

Chapter 11 - Objections to inspection (1): introduction and legal professional privilege
Section C. - Legal Professional Privilege
Disclosure 5th Ed.

Chapter 11 - Objections to inspection (1): introduction and legal professional privilege
Section D. - Legal Advice Privilege
Documentary Evidence 14th Ed.

Chapter 14 - Privilege: Whose Communications?
A. - Communications with Non-Lawyers: Pandolfo
Documentary Evidence 14th Ed.

Chapter 14 - Privilege: Whose Communications?
F. - New Business Structures
Expert Evidence: Law and Practice 5th Ed.

Chapter 7 - Privilege and Confidentiality
Section A. - Legal Professional Privilege
Expert Evidence: Law and Practice 5th Ed.

Chapter 7 - Privilege and Confidentiality
1. - Legal advice privilege
Freedom of Information in the UK, 1st Ed.

Chapter 17 - Confidentiality and Privilege
What is legal professional privilege?
Human Rights Practice

Chapter 14 - Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination
14.051 Employment and occupation
IDS Employment Law Handbooks

Chapter 9 - Responding to opponent’s case
Legal professional privilege
Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability 8th Ed. Incorporating Fourth Supplement
Chapter 7 - Human Rights and Judicial Review in Professional Liability
(b) - Lawyer/Client Confidentiality and the Convention
Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability 8th Ed. Incorporating Fourth Supplement
Chapter 17 - Accountants and Auditors
(iii) - Equitable Obligations
Jervis on Coroners 14th Ed.

Chapter 7 - Information and Publicity
Privilege

Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability 8th Ed.

Chapter 7 - Human Rights and Judicial Review in Professional Liability
(b) - Lawyer/Client Confidentiality and the Convention
Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability 8th Ed.

Chapter 17 - Accountants and Auditors
(iii) - Equitable Obligations
Law, Practice & Conduct for Solicitors 2nd Ed.

Chapter 6 - Confidentiality
Introduction
Law, Practice & Conduct for Solicitors 2nd Ed.

Chapter 6 - Confidentiality
Legal Professional Privilege
May on Criminal Evidence 6th Ed.

Chapter 11 - Privilege
Section 2. - Legal Professional Privilege
Medical Negligence 6th Ed.

Chapter 13 - Practice and Procedure
(i) - Legal professional privilege
O'Hare & Browne: Civil Litigation 20th Ed.

Chapter 30 - Disclosure and Inspection
Privileged Documents
Parliament House Book

Chapter 35 Recovery of Evidence
35.2 Applications for commission and diligence for recovery of documents or for orders under section 1 of the
Act of 1972
Phipson on Evidence 19th Ed. Incorporating Second Supplement

Chapter 5 - Estoppels
(b) - Substantive law or matter of evidence?
Phipson on Evidence 19th Ed. Incorporating Second Supplement

Chapter 23 - Legal Professional Privilege
(b) - Communications with non-lawyers: Pandolfo
Phipson on Evidence 19th Ed.

Chapter 5 - Estoppels
(b) - Substantive law or matter of evidence?
Phipson on Evidence 19th Ed.

(b) - Communications with non-lawyers: Pandolfo
Privilege 4th Ed.

Chapter 1 - Legal Professional Privilege: Core Principles
Section 1. - Privilege: In Summary
Privilege 4th Ed.

Origins: a brief history

Privilege 4th Ed.

The development of the substantive rule in England
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 3. - Asserting Privilege: The Consequences of the Absolute Approach
Privilege 4th Ed.

Criticisms of and qualifications to the absolute rule
Privilege 4th Ed.

Litigation privilege: an absolute right?
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 5. - Privilege: Jurisdictional Issues
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 6. - Privilege: Other Professions?
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 8. - Privilege and Human Rights
Privilege 4th Ed.

Chapter 2 - Legal Professional Privilege: Advice Privilege
Section 1. - Introduction
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 4. - Advice Privilege: The Client-Lawyer Relationship
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 7. - Identifying Legal Advice and Assistance
Privilege 4th Ed.

Section 9. - Advice Privilege: What is Not Protected
Privilege 4th Ed.

Chapter 3 - Legal Professional Privilege: Litigation Privilege
Section 10. - Litigation Privilege: Witness Statements
Privilege 4th Ed.

Chapter 3 - Legal Professional Privilege: Litigation Privilege
Section 13. - Legal Advice Given By Non-lawyers In Respect of Litigation
Privilege 4th Ed.

Chapter 6 - Joint and Common Interests
Section 2. - Joint Retainers and Joint Interests

Privilege 4th Ed.

Chapter 8 - The Crime-Fraud Exception
Section 3. - What Conduct Attracts the Crime-Fraud Exception in Civil Proceedings?
Sealy & Milman: Annotated Guide to the Insolvency Legislation 24th Ed. - 2021
The Second Group of Parts: Insolvency of Individuals; Bankruptcy
311— Acquisition by trustee of control
Scottish Tax Yearbook 2016/17

Chapter 26 - Revenue Scotland Functions And Powers
Part 3: Investigatory powers of Revenue Scotland: Information and documents
Taxation of Companies and Company Reconstructions

Chapter B4 - Information and Inspection Powers
B4.3.1 Legal professional privilege
The Law of Insolvency 5th Ed.

Chapter 8 - The Bankruptcy Order and its Consequences: (II)—Proprietary Effects
Section 1. - Property Vesting in the Trustee
Trust Taxation and Estate Planning 4th Ed.

Chapter 66 - Tax Avoidance and Disclosure
Section IV - Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (“DOTAS”)
White Book 2021

Section A - Civil Procedure Rules 1998
Rule 31.3 - Right of inspection of a disclosed document
White Book 2021

Section 2 - Specialist Proceedings
Rule 63.9 - Disclosure and inspection
Wurtzburg & Mills: Building Society Law

Chapter 18 - The Regulators
18.24 Powers under the Building Societies Act 1986
Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice 3rd Ed.

The Basis for Protection
Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice 3rd Ed.

Boundaries of Legal Professional Privilege
Journal Articles
Legal advice privilege and artificial legal intelligence: Can robots give privileged legal advice?
Abstract | Full Text
E. & P. 2019, 23(4), 422-439
Abstract:
Reflects on whether legal advice given by a robot should be treated as privileged, including whether: the
rationale for legal advice privilege extends to communications between clients and robots; robots are capable

of giving legal advice and being legal advisers; and the statutory law on privilege should be extended to
include robot/client communications.
Survival of the fittest

Abstract
Co. L.J. 2019, 88(Nov/Dec), 2-5
Abstract:
Discusses Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP (CA) on whether legal advice privilege attaching to
communications between a company and its lawyers subsisted following the company's dissolution and, if
so, whether it was capable of being waived. Considers whether the court below was correct to distinguish
Garvin Trustees Ltd v Pensions Regulator (UT).
Malicious prosecution and abuse of process: Willers v Joyce

C.J.Q. 2017, 36(4), 387-400
Abstract:
Examines Willers v Joyce (SC) on whether English law recognised a general tort of malicious prosecution
of civil proceedings and the procedural concerns raised in the dissenting judgments. Outlines what must be
proved in order to establish this tort. Considers the subsequent Willers v Joyce (Ch D) decision providing
guidance on the pleading of evidence in a statement of case.
LLP and the Panama papers

Abstract
L.S.G. 2016, 113(14), 20
Abstract:
Discusses whether legal professional privilege, specifically legal advice privilege, applies in relation to the
"Panama papers" - documents from law firm Mossack Fonseca leaked to media organisations. Considers the
issues of: (1) privilege for confidential information and advice; (2) legal advice privilege and the "iniquity
exemption"; and (3) fraud and justification for production of confidential documents in court.
Pushing the boundaries: the impact of the changing nature of the professions in construction law
Const. L.J. 2016, 32(8), 849-860
Abstract:
Assesses the implications for the future co-existence of the professions in the construction and engineering
sectors of market developments and technological innovations facilitating the overlap of their traditional areas
of expertise. Considers the definition of a "profession", particularly in the construction context. Comments
on the emergence in Scotland of commercial attorneys with rights of audience in construction law cases.
Start the clock

Abstract
N.L.J. 2015, 165(7649), 11-12
Abstract:

Analyses when a solicitor's contractual retainer arises and legal advice privilege applies in a case, based on
examples in a family law context.
A Supreme education
Abstract
N.L.J. 2014, 164(7594), 17-18
Abstract:
Reviews the work of the Supreme Court during 2013, noting the number of decisions handed down through
the year and their subject matter. Highlights key cases.
An unsatisfactory stalemate: R (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
E. & P. 2014, 18(1), 65-77
Abstract:
Discusses the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege applied to legal advice regarding tax avoidance schemes
provided by accountants.
How far should judges develop the common law?

C.J.I.C.L. 2014, 3(1), 124-135
Abstract:
Illustrates, using case law, judicial consideration of whether it is right for the Supreme Court to make changes
to the common law.
Overview: civil procedure

C.J.I.C.L. 2014, 3(1), 254-256
Abstract:
Reviews the Supreme Court's jurisprudence of 2012-13 dealing with aspects of civil procedure, including:
(1) the scope of legal advice privilege; (2) injunctions; (3) service out of jurisdiction; and (4) costs.
Overview: constitutional law

C.J.I.C.L. 2014, 3(1), 261-264
Abstract:
Reviews the Supreme Court's jurisprudence of 2012-13 dealing with aspects of constitutional law, including:
(1) legislative competence; (2) unauthorised surveillance; (3) the scope of legal advice privilege; (4)
jursidiction to hear appeals of Scottish civil cases; and (5) human rights.
Overview: tax law


C.J.I.C.L. 2014, 3(1), 316-318
Abstract:
Reviews the Supreme Court's jurisprudence of 2012-13 involving issues of tax law.
A lawyer's privilege
Abstract
Building 2013, 5, 50-51
Abstract:
Comments on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v
Special Commissioner of Income Tax that legal advice given by an accountancy firm was not protected from
disclosure by legal advice privilege as such privilege did not extend beyond the legal profession. Notes the
court's view that any extension of legal advice privilege should be decided by Parliament.
A privileged position?
Abstract
N.L.J. 2013, 163(7548), 164-165
Abstract:
Looks at the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax that legal advice privilege did not cover communications between accountants and their clients
for the purpose of legal advice, and only applied to communications between lawyers and their clients.
Suggests that parliamentary intervention to extend legal advice privilege is unlikely and developments may
move to the creation of multi-disciplinary partnerships of solicitors and accountants.
A privileged upbringing
Abstract
Co. L.J. 2013, 48(Mar/Apr), 10-12
Abstract:
Explores the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that legal advice privilege (LAP) did not extend to legal advice given by non-lawyers. Asks
whether legislative amendment would be appropriate or the historic common law principles remain fit for
purpose. Looks at the nature and scope of LAP, its broad interpretation by the courts and Parliament in the
past, questions relating to the extension of LAP, and the competing public interests.
A view from the ICAEW: whither legal advice privilege after the Supreme Court judgment?
Abstract
Tax J. 2013, 1155, 16
Abstract:
Comments on accountants' response to the Supreme Court judgment in R. (on the application of Prudential
Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal professional privilege protected confidential
advice by accountants to their clients about tax avoidance schemes, as it protected similar advice given by
lawyers. Discusses whether the judgment underestimates the uncertainty about the scope of legal professional
privilege in multi-disciplinary practices under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Accountants denied legal advice privilege by Supreme Court

Abstract
Accountancy 2013, 150(1435), 64
Abstract:
Comments on the Supreme Court judgment in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special
Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege should protect not only advice given by
lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients. Considers the need for care when
non-privileged advice is drafted, and the application of litigation privilege to non-lawyers.
Administration of justice
P.L. 2013, Apr, 386-388
Abstract:
Reviews developments from November 2012 to January 2013 relating to the administration of justice,
including cases on: (1) the applicability of legal advice privilege to the advice of non-lawyer professionals;
(2) the competence of a man allegedly assaulted by police officers to bring damages claims against the Chief
Constable and the Lord Advocate for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.3; (3)
the legality of the DPP's policy on discontinuing private prosecutions; and (4) the Court of Appeal's power
to remit contempt of court cases to the first instance court.
Adult claims, moving abroad and lawyers versus accountants

Abstract
P.C.A. 2013, 18(5), 9
Abstract:
Comments on the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax to refuse to extend legal advice privilege to communications between a client and his
accountant. Notes the question of legal advice privilege in multi-disciplinary partnerships remains unclear.
Brothers in law?
Abstract
Tax. 2013, 171(4398), 8-9
Abstract:
Discusses the arguments put forward by the Law Society, intervening in the case of R. (on the application
of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax, against legal professional privilege (LPP) being
extended by the Supreme Court to communications containing legal advice from professionals other than the
legal profession, in this case accountants. Explains the reasoning behind limiting LPP to the legal profession,
the balance needed between protecting professionals and ensuring full disclosure in court and why the court
felt any extension should be left to Parliament.
Case of the week: professions

Abstract
Lawyer 2013, 27(6), 14-15
Abstract:

of Income Tax, establishing that legal advice privilege did not apply to legal advice given by someone other
than a member of the legal profession, and therefore did not cover legal advice given by accountants in
relation to a tax avoidance scheme.
Consultants constrained
Abstract
J.L.S.S. 2013, 58(3), 23
Abstract:
Comments on the implications for claims consultants consulted in relation to building contracts and
construction disputes and those who consult them of the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of
Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax that legal advice privilege only attaches to advice
given by legal professionals.
Consultation with non-lawyers is not privileged at common law

C.L.J. 2013, 72(2), 284-287
Abstract:
Discusses the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax on whether legal advice given by accountants was governed by legal advice privilege.
Decision hints privilege should be expanded

Abstract
Accountancy Irl. 2013, 45(2), 75-76
Abstract:
Commissioner of Income Tax on whether tax planning advice given by accountants, like legal advice given
by lawyers, should be protected by privilege from disclosure to Revenue and Customs, or whether it was
for Parliament only and not for the court to extend the scope of the common law. Compares Irish law and
examines whether accountants can take steps towards ensuring that their advice stays confidential.
Editorial
P.C.B. 2013, 2, 43-45
Abstract:
Reviews tax and trust law developments, including: (1) the controversy over the UK tax avoidance strategies
of certain multinational companies; (2) discourse blurring the distinction between tax avoidance and evasion;
(3) the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income
Tax on whether legal advice from accountants was privileged; (4) proposed measures on trusts with vulnerable
beneficiaries; (5) the grant of Royal Assent to the Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013; and (5) the Treasury's
proposal that there should be one annual Budget.
Evasive measures? The ever-blurring line between tax avoidance and tax evasion
Abstract
B.J.I.B. & F.L. 2013, 28(8), 510-511

Abstract:
Comments on recent high-profile tax cases. Discusses: (1) R. (on the application of UK Uncut Legal Action
Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners on a challenge to the settlement agreed between Revenue and
Customs and an investment bank in a tax dispute; (2) Vodafone International Holdings BV v India on the
Indian tax treatment of the indirect acquisition by a foreign multinational of an Indian company by way of
an offshore company; and (3) R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income
Tax on whether legal advice privilege applied to accountants' advice.
Fallout from Prudential

Abstract
Accountancy 2013, 150(1435), 68
Abstract:
lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients. Criticises the judgment for failing
to give clients assurance that, whichever professional adviser they chose, their discussions should remain
confidential. Examines how the judgment will affect competition in the market for tax planning advice.
For your lawyers only: the UK Supreme Court ruling on legal advice privilege
Abstract
B.J.I.B. & F.L. 2013, 28(3), 138-140
Abstract:
Explains the current application of legal advice privilege and questions the likelihood that it could be extended
beyond legal professionals to other professions. Discusses how the Supreme Court in R. (on the application
of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax recognised that the test as to whether advice should
be privileged should use the function of the advice rather than the status of the professional, although the
court did not extend its scope. Outlines the court's considerations of the risk of opening the floodgates and
the need for a policy change to be left to Parliament.
Intervention at the UK Supreme Court

C.J.I.C.L. 2013, 2(1), 16-32
Abstract:
Compares the practice of intervention in the Supreme Courts of the UK, the US and Canada, including its
purpose and procedures. Presents data on the rates of intervention at the UK Supreme Court in 2009-12 and
the House of Lords in 2005-09.
LPP is for lawyers only, for now

Abstract
C.M. 2013, Mar, 22-24
Abstract:
Considers the implications for financial services firms of the Supreme Court judgment in R. (on the
application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax that legal professional privilege (LPP)

should not be extended to cover legal advice provided by non-lawyers. Explains the relevance to compliance
professionals and how they should prepare for a possible change in the law.
Legal advice privilege

Abstract
C.S.R. 2013, 36(25), 195
Abstract:
Comments on the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that legal advice privilege did not apply to legal advice given by someone other than a member
of the legal profession, and therefore did not cover legal advice given by accountants in relation to a tax
avoidance scheme.
Legal advice privilege just for lawyers

Abstract
L.L.I.D. 2013, Feb 7, 11
Abstract:
Reports on the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that legal advice privilege could not be extended to advice given by professionals other than
lawyers, in the case of accountants giving legal advice on tax matters. Outlines accountancy industry reaction
to the ruling.
Legal advice privilege: only lawyers can join the club

Abstract
PLC Mag. 2013, 24(1), 16
Abstract:
of Income Tax that legal advice privilege only attached to legal advice provided by professional qualified
lawyers and not to advice given by accountants on tax planning. Advises on the implications for taxpayers
receiving legal advice on tax issues from other professionals and dealing with HMRC.
Legal advice privilege: traditional limits and modern practice

Abstract
L.C.B. 2013, 26(Jul), 5-7
Abstract:
Discusses legal advice privilege in light of the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential
Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax that legal advice privilege is restricted to the legal profession
and does not encompass legal advice given by other professionals, such as accountants. Explains what
legal professional privilege is and the distinction between its two sub-categories, legal advice privilege and
litigation privilege. Considers what sort of lawyer can give advice covered by legal advice privilege.
Legal privilege
Abstract
Civ. P.B. 2013, 111(Jun), 1-2

Abstract:
Reminds practitioners of the principles of legal privilege laid down in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England
(Disclosure) (No.4) in the light of the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc)
v Special Commissioner of Income Tax that legal advice privilege does not attach to accountants or anyone
outside the legal profession.
Legal privilege
Abstract
Ir. T.R. 2013, 26(1), 51
Abstract:
Comments, from an Irish perspective, on the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential
Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal professional privilege applied to the tax advice
supplied by accountants to their clients.

Abstract
I.C.L. Rev. 2013, 30(3), 365-366
Abstract:
Reports on the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax that only legal advice given by qualified lawyers attracts the protection of legal advice privilege
and that any broadening of its scope is a matter for Parliament. Notes that the decision confirms that reached
by the Technology and Construction Court in Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay.
Legal professional privilege - Supreme Court ruling

Abstract
Corp. Brief. 2013, Mar, 8-9
Abstract:
Reports on the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that legal professional privilege only applied to qualified lawyers and not to confidential legal
advice on tax matters provided by an accountant. Highlights the importance for lawyers and non-lawyers
in organisations that provide quasi-legal advice, and the implications for the choice of professional adviser
by clients.
Legal professional privilege - form or function?

Abstract
S.L.G. 2013, 81(1), 9-12
Abstract:
Discusses the differing approaches taken by the courts in two decisions on legal professional privilege: (1)
the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
on whether legal advice given by accountants was covered by legal advice privilege; and (2) the European
Court of Human Rights decision in Michaud v France (12323/11) on whether the duty of an avocat to
report suspicious activities in relation to money laundering was compatible with the European Convention
on Human Rights 1950 art.8.

Legal professional privilege in Scotland and elsewhere

Abstract
I.H.L. 2013, 213(Sep), 44-47
Abstract:
Explores the development and operation of legal professional privilege in Scottish law and the similarities and
differences between its application in Scotland and England, with reference to case law. Explains the basic
principles of legal professional privilege, noting the sub-categories of legal advice privilege and litigation
privilege, the reason why it has developed, who can claim it and whose advice is privileged. Advises on the
duties of in-house lawyers when dealing with privileged information.
Maintaining the status quo

Abstract
L.S.G. 2013, 110(3), 20,22
Abstract:
of Income Tax on whether the protection from disclosure afforded under the principle of legal professional
privilege extended to advice on tax law given by a firm of accountants.
No change: Supreme Court holds that accountants' tax advice is not protected by privilege
Abstract
I.H.L. 2013, 208(Mar), 23-25
Abstract:
Looks at the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax that communications between a client and an accountant giving legal advice on tax law were not
covered by legal advice privilege, even though the same advice given by a solicitor would attract privilege,
for reasons including the appropriateness of Parliament dealing with any extension of privilege through the
legislative process. Outlines the dissenting judgments.
Open secrets
Abstract
Building 2013, 11, 45
Abstract:
Examines case law on when disclosure of documents is precluded by legal advice privilege or litigation
privilege. Comments on the Technology and Construction Court decision in Transport for Greater Manchester
v Thales Transport & Security Ltd on whether documents between a contractor and a consultant were
protected from disclosure as evidence in a construction dispute. Highlights the court's approach to
determining litigation privilege based on whether the sole or dominant purpose of the documents was for
conducting litigation.
Practice and procedure: legal advice privilege only protects lawyers' advice
IDS Emp. L. Brief 2013, 969, 9-12
Abstract:

of Income Tax on whether documents containing advice given to a company by accountants, regarding the
adoption of a tax avoidance scheme, were exempt from disclosure under the Taxes Management Act 1970
s.20 on the ground that they were subject to legal advice privilege. Considers the arguments on whether such
privilege could be extended to a qualified person who is a member of a profession or should be limited to
lawyers as it raised policy questions which should be left to Parliament.
Privilege judgment: the fight goes on

Abstract
L.S.G. 2013, 110(3), 1
Abstract:
Highlights the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that advice given Prudential by an accountancy firm in relation to a tax avoidance scheme
was not covered by legal professional privilege. Notes the response of the Law Society and of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to the decision.
Privilege: legal advice privilege - advice provided by non-legally qualified persons

Abstract
C.I.L.L. 2013, Mar, 3309-3314
Abstract:
of Income Tax on whether documents containing advice given by accountants regarding the adoption of a
tax avoidance scheme were exempt from disclosure under the Finance Act 2000 s.20 on the ground that they
were subject to legal advice privilege.
Professional advice privilege: non-lawyers

Abstract
Lit. L. 2013, Mar, 34
Abstract:
Summarises the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege extended to legal advice given by a professional person who
was not a member of the legal profession, in this case an accountant advising on a tax avoidance scheme.
Professional privilege litigation remains a live issue in Europe's courts

Abstract
I.H.P. 2013, 9(3), 7-8
Abstract:
Outlines the discussions held at the International Bar Association's Corporate Counsel Forum conference held
in Paris in 2013 on three European court decisions on the scope of legal professional privilege: (1) a Dutch
Supreme Court judgment on whether, in general, the advice given by in-house lawyers was privileged; (2) a
Belgian Court of Appeal decision on this privilege in respect of in-house lawyer advice on competition law
matters; and (3) the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax on whether the advice of accountants was privileged.
Prudential and legal advice privilege

Abstract
Tax J. 2013, 1155, 14-16
Abstract:
Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal professional privilege should protect not only advice given by
lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients. Compares the US and New Zealand
experiences of statutory privilege for tax avoidance scheme advice and discusses why the UK Parliament has
considered the issue but decided not to extend the scope of privilege beyond lawyers' advice.
Prudential and legal professional privilege

Abstract
Tax J. 2013, 1154, 6
Abstract:
Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal professional privilege should protect not only advice given
by lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients. Discusses whether there is
any prospect of the Government changing the law and, if so, whether legal professional privilege will be
restricted rather than extended.
Prudential case: legal advice privilege

Abstract
Accountancy 2013, 150(1435), 30
Abstract:
lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients.
Prudential decision and tax structuring: a cautionary tale

Abstract
PLC Mag. 2013, 24(3), 18-19
Abstract:
Examines the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax that legal advice privilege only extended to legal advice provided by qualified legal professionals
and not to other professional advisers. Highlights the relevance for tax structuring advice, mainly given by
non-legal professionals, and HMRC's investigative powers. Identifies practical considerations, including the
need to carefully consider the confidentiality of tax advice.
Prudential gets rough judgment

Abstract
Lawyer 2013, 27(5), 9
Abstract:

of Income Tax on whether the protection from disclosure afforded under the principle of legal professional
privilege extended to advice on tax law given by a firm of accountants.
Pushing the limits of legal advice privilege

Abstract
S.J. 2013, 157(4), 11
Abstract:
Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal professional privilege protected confidential advice by
accountants to their clients about tax avoidance schemes, as it protected similar advice given by lawyers.
Considers whether, although accountants and lawyers may carry out similar functions for their clients, there
must above all be certainty as to the scope of legal professional privilege. Looks at the practical consequences
of the judgment in the market for tax advice.
R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax

Abstract
De Voil I.T.I. 2013, 202, 14-16
Abstract:
Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege applied to tax planning advice given by accountants to their
clients.
Re Prudential Plc [2013] UKSC 1: the Supreme Court leaves to Parliament the issue of privilege for tax advice
by accountants, what Parliament should do is restrict privilege for tax advice given by lawyers
C.J.Q. 2013, 32(3), 313-322
Abstract:
of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege (LAP) could be extended to tax advice given by accountants
or whether it was for Parliament to decide which professions other than the legal profession should be covered
by LAP. Suggests that, in the light of the Government's efforts to combat tax avoidance, Parliament should
consider restricting the application of LAP to the tax advice given by lawyers rather than extending it to
accountants.
Recent cases
Abstract
J.C.P.P. 2013, 9(2), Internet
Abstract:
Considers Irish High Court rulings on whether: (1) a person not party to proceedings was entitled to have sight
of affidavits in which serious allegations were made against him; (2) the joinder of a co-defendant should be
struck out on the basis of the plaintiff's delay; (3) an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution
over rents should be set aside; (4) a defendant in a personal injury action was entitled to seek extensive
particulars abut the claim; and (5) costs should be awarded in environmental judicial review proceedings.
Notes a UK ruling on legal advice privilege.

Supreme Court confirms scope

Abstract
P.L.J. 2013, 307, 14-17
Abstract:
Analyses the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege could extend to communications with accountants and tax
advisers where legal advice was given. Considers the implications for the real estate sector, in respect of
advice given by surveyors, architects and planning consultants. Advises on precautions professionals should
take.
Taxpayers say legal advice privilege won't affect choice of advisers

Abstract
I.T. Rev. 2013, Mar, 6
Abstract:
Comments on the responses of tax lawyers at large companies to the Supreme Court judgment in R. (on
the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege
should protect not only advice given by lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their
clients, and examines whether the companies will seek privileged advice from lawyers rather than non-
privileged advice from accountants.
The Supreme Court's decision in Prudential

Abstract
De Voil I.T.I. 2013, 202, 34-38
Abstract:
Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege applied to tax planning advice given by accountants to their
clients. Compares the position in New Zealand and Australia. Considers the application of litigation privilege
to tax advice.
The privilege card

Abstract
N.L.J. 2013, 163(7546), 85
Abstract:
Notes the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax that legal professional privilege only applied to qualified solicitors and barristers, and did not
extend to accountants providing legal advice on tax planning.
The privilege of legal advice privilege is to stay with the lawyers

Abstract
Int. C.R. 2013, 10(3), 172-175
Abstract:
Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that legal advice privilege (LAP) did not extend to non-legal professionals providing legal

advice, focusing on accountants providing tax planning advice to clients. Considers the defence that it is the
nature of the advice which determines whether LAP applies and not the professional status of the adviser.
Highlights the court's opinion that extensions to LAP are a matter of policy to be determined by Parliament.
The privileged few

Abstract
Accountancy 2013, 150(1435), 33
Abstract:
lawyers but also tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients, and discusses the outcome for
accountants, and prospects of a lobbying campaign for statutory reform.
The scope of legal advice privilege

Abstract
C.L. & J. 2013, 177(13/14), 218-219
Abstract:
Examines the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax that legal advice privilege did not apply to legal advice given by someone other than a member
of the legal profession, and therefore did not cover legal advice given by accountants in relation to a tax
avoidance scheme.
The scope of legal professional privilege

P.N. 2013, 29(2), 132-135
Abstract:
of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege should protect not only advice given by lawyers but also
tax planning advice given by accountants to their clients.
The tax adviser and legal advice privilege: the last word
Abstract
Ir. T.R. 2013, 26(1), 141-145
Abstract:
Discusses the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax on whether tax advice provided to a taxpayer by an accountancy firm was protected by legal
advice privilege, or whether this only applied to communications from lawyers. Outlines Lord Sumption's
dissenting judgment.
Thin end of the wedge

Abstract
Tax. 2013, 171(4388), 4
Abstract:

of Income Tax on whether legal professional privilege covers advice given by professional tax advisers to
clients regarding tax avoidance schemes.
Time to share
Abstract
Tax. 2013, 171(4402), 8-9
Abstract:
Explains the inability of accountants and other advisers to benefit from legal advice privilege, noting the
Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax that
the privilege should be restricted to legally qualified advisers. Considers the arguments put to the court in
favour of legal professional privilege being extended to other professionals, and highlights recent professional
debate on this issue. Argues for a change in the law, particularly in view of the broadening of legal services
to other professional providers.
UK: Supreme Court refuses to extend privilege to accountants

Abstract
T.P.I.I.T. 2013, 11(2), 18-20
Abstract:
of Income Tax on whether legal advice privilege applied to confidential legal advice relating to tax matters
provided by an accountant. Compares the position in the US and New Zealand. Considers the practical
implications of the decision.
United Kingdom: Supreme Court refuses to extend privilege to accountants

Abstract
Euro. T.S. 2013, Feb, 12-15
Abstract:
Examines the Supreme Court decision in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner
of Income Tax that confidential legal advice concerning tax matters provided by an accountant rather than
a lawyer did not fall within the scope of legal professional privilege, and could not therefore be protected
against disclosure. Notes the court's view that Parliament rather than the courts would be the correct place
to decide on such an extension of scope, supported by experience in the US and New Zealand. Comments
on the likely impact of the decision.
Whose privilege is it, anyway?

Abstract
J.L.S.S. 2013, 58(3), 22-23
Abstract:
Considers the question of whether legal advice given by non-legal professionals should be treated as
privileged communications by reference to the leading judgment of Lord Neuberger and the minority
judgment of Lord Sumption on the issue delivered in the Supreme Court in R. (on the application of Prudential
Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax.
Withdrawal of privileges

Abstract
E.G. 2013, 1313, 69
Abstract:
Considers the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of
Income Tax on whether expert legal advice given by tax accountants was subject to legal advice privilege.
Reflects on the risk of uncertainty which would be created if the rule on legal advice privilege were extended
to include non-lawyers. Notes ways in which property professionals can protect clients against being required
to disclose legal advice.
Topic Overviews
Legal services
Practical Law References
Practice Notes Overview
HMRC criminal investigation powers

Maintained
Legal professional privilege in civil litigation: an overview

Maintained
Practice Notes
Equitable liens
Maintained
HMRC information powers

Maintained
Legal professional privilege for criminal lawyers: overview

Maintained
Legal professional privilege in criminal law: privilege and inter-jurisdictional issues

Maintained
Legal professional privilege in internal investigations

Maintained
Raid by HMRC
Maintained

UK Checklists
Legal professional privilege: flowchart

Maintained
UK Case Trackers
Private client case tracker

Maintained
Tax case tracker: archive

Maintained
Legal Update (Case Report)
Legal advice privilege survives dissolution and Crown disclaimer (Court of Appeal)
Published on 08-Oct-2019

R (On The Application of Prudential PLC)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R (On The Application of Prudential PLC)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R.

(on the application of Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of

© 2021 Thomson Reuters.

For educational use only

Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration

Other related subjects

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 1

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 2

All Cases Cited

R. (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 3

Tower MCashback LLP 1 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 4

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v European Commission (C-550/07 P)

Prudential Plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

C's Application for Judicial Review, Re

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 5

Coleman v Attridge Law (A Firm) (C-303/06)

Monro v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Narden Services Ltd v Inverness Retail and Business Park Ltd

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 6

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-125/03)

Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin' Ltd

Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (Costs)

Spectrum Plus Ltd (In Liquidation), Re

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 7

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes)

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 8

McKerr's Application for Judicial Review, Re

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 9

B v Auckland District Law Society

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England

Medcalf v Mardell (Wasted Costs Order)

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 10

S (Children) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan), Re

Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC

R. v Allen (Brian Roger)

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 11

R. v Dimsey (Dermot Jeremy)

Johnson v Unisys Ltd

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 12

Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons

R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. Banque Internationale a Luxembourg SA

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 13

General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel

R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Simms

Paragon Finance Plc (formerly National Home Loans Corp) v Freshfields

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 14

R. v Manchester Crown Court Ex p. Rogers

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 15

R. v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Ex p. Begley

Gotha City v Sotheby's (No.1)

L (A Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege), Re

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 16

R. v Derby Magistrates' Court Ex p. B

R. v Clegg (Lee William)

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 17

Bolton v Law Society

New Victoria Hospital v Ryan

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 18