header-logo header-logo

14 October 2019
Issue: 7859 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Legal services , Fraud
printer mail-detail

The extent of privilege

Legal advice privilege continues until and unless it is waived by the client or removed by statute, the Court of Appeal has held in a landmark case.

Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe [2019] EWCA Civ 1600 concerned negligence proceedings brought against Dentons by the investor in a scheme marketed by a Cypriot company that later dissolved. The company was advised by Salans, which has since been renamed Dentons Europe. The investor claimed the scheme was a fraud and sought disclosure of documents passed between Salans and the company, which were privileged at the time of communication. A court held that the privilege attached to the documents remains in place even though the company no longer exists.

On appeal, the investor reiterated its argument that privilege is a right solely for an identifiable client and the client’s successors in title. No third party was entitled to assert it. Where no legal person has a right to privilege, the right ceases to exist and the court cannot enforce it. Dentons argued that privilege continued unless waived by the client or overridden by statute.

Delivering his judgment, Lord Justice Lewison said: ‘The rationale for the privilege means that privilege comes into existence at the time when the person in question consults his lawyer. The client must be sure at the time when he consults his lawyer, that, without his consent, there are no circumstances under which the privileged communications will be disclosed without his consent.’

Lewison LJ said the investor’s arguments would amount to a ‘retrospective redrawing of the boundaries of legal advice privilege’. He clarified that his judgment referred only to legal advice privilege not litigation privilege.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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’
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll