header-logo header-logo

Stemming family leaks

06 May 2016 / David Burrows
Issue: 7697 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7697_burrows

David Burrows shares his reflections on legal advice privilege & the Panama Papers

The leaked Panama Papers raise questions for a lawyer asked to advise in relation to documents which may provide evidence of fraud, for example a family lawyer who is asked for advice on the documents of an allegedly non-disclosing spouse. If fraud is proved, information from the leaks could be used to set aside a matrimonial finance order (per Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] 1 All ER 671) if it shows non-disclosure. However, prior questions arise before documents can be used as part of the client’s case. The first is: are any of the leaked documents covered by legal professional privilege (LPP)—in this case, its major branch, legal advice privilege (LAP)—which would make them beyond the range of disclosure in court proceedings?

This article first defines LAP. Second, it asks whether LAP applies to leaked documents according to whether they were part of a “relevant legal context”; and, third, it questions whether LAP may not arise in the first place,

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll