Richard Farnhill concludes his examination of privilege and considers if the system is fit for purpose ‘The recent privilege decisions are inconsistent with, and indeed have not considered, the substantive rules on attribution. In the absence of any proper distinction, those rules are binding and the recent privilege decisions are therefore incorrect.’ The first two …
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Balabel v Air India  1 Ch 317
- Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd  EWHC 1017 (QB)
- Re RBS Rights Issue Litigation  EWHC 3161 (Ch)
- Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 6)  EWCA Civ 474;  UKHL 48
- West London Pipeline & Storage Ltd & anor v Total UK Ltd & ors  EWHC 1729 (Comm)
- Wheeler v Le Marchant  17 Ch D 675