header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 November 2025 / Sophie Ashcroft , Miranda Joseph
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Features , Company , Privilege
printer mail-detail

Shaping the future of shareholder litigation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
235044
Sophie Ashcroft & Miranda Joseph discuss a landmark Privy Council judgment & its implications for legal professional privilege in corporate litigation
  • Explains the origins of the shareholder rule, the difficulties in its application, and the reasoning behind the court’s decision to abolish it.
  • Considers the implications of the judgment for companies and their advisers.

The Privy Council’s decision in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and others No 2 (Bermuda) [2025] UKPC 34 marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of legal professional privilege. In a judgment handed down on 24 July 2025, the board decisively rejected the long-standing shareholder rule: a doctrine that had allowed shareholders to access privileged legal advice obtained by a company. The board declared that it no longer forms part of the law of Bermuda, or of England and Wales.

Background to the dispute

The case arose from the 2021 amalgamation of Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd and JMH Bermuda Ltd, forming Jardine Strategic Ltd (the company). Shareholders

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll