Is evidence which discloses iniquity still considered legally privileged? Shane Crawford looks at the facts
- Examines a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case in which the limits of legal privilege were considered in circumstances where the contents of the document in question disclosed possible iniquity.
In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision, X v Y Ltd UKEAT/0261/17/JOJ, the limits of legal privilege were considered in circumstances where the contents of the document disclosed potential iniquity.
Evidence to which legal privilege attaches may still be used as evidence in the employment tribunal if the advice provided within facilitates an iniquity.
‘Advice sought or given for the purpose of iniquity is not privileged’: Barclays Bank plc v Eustice [1995] 4 All ER 511, [1995] 1 WLR 1238.
Sources of evidence may be pertinent—if not essential—to a claim, but their admissibility is thwarted by their classification as being privileged. Such a situation arose in X v Y Ltd , where an email between lawyers for the respondent was judged to be contemplating the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
