In considering costs issues following judgment in a complex patent action, the High Court had to determine whether it was appropriate for the court to be
A recent tribunal decision has given a reminder of when a waiver of privilege will (or will not) extend further than a party intends: Fisher v HMRC 2012 UKFTT 335.
The Court of Appeal has held that a claimant was entitled to assert privilege in a draft witness statement relating to separate litigation, despite having previously copied the draft to the defendant in the current proceedings: Berezovsky v Hine 2011 EWCA Civ 1089.
A company is not generally entitled to assert privilege against its shareholders, since they have a joint interest in the advice received.
The High Court has clarified the circumstances in which a company director or officer is entitled to assert joint interest privilege in legal advice received by the company where the individual was not an express party to the solicitor’s retainer.
A recent High Court decision confirms that where a party relies on the contents of privileged material to support its case on the merits at the interlocutory stage, it will be taken to have waived privilege in the relevant materials for the purposes of the trial: Berezovsky v Abramovich 2011 EWHC 1143.
In Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon PLC 2011 EWCA Civ 136, the Court of Appeal held that the court could not override privilege in an earlier expert's report, but could and would normally require waiver of the privilege as a condition of granting permission to adduce evidence from a different expert.
A case involving the impact of a counterparts clause in a draft agreement has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a contract existed.
The recent case of Tchenguiz v Imeran 2009 EWHC 2902 gives guidance on when lawyers' annotations (in particular highlighting or underlining on documents) are protected by legal professional privilege.