Legal professional privilege: Behind closed doors

Kelly Merris and Charlie Fikry provide an analysis of a case involving legal professional privilege where fraud was alleged and assess the wider implications ‘Legal professional privilege is considered a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice rests.’ In Bruzas v Saxton [2018] Holman J gave a preliminary judgment following a highly unusual sequence …
This post is only available to members.

Twin Benefits v Meek [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

This was an application by the claimant for an order for disclosure against a non-party under CPR r.31.17. The underlying action concerned a claim by the assignee of rights from the twin minor children of the first defendant (‘the twins’) concerning a compromise of earlier proceedings (‘the compromise’). The claimant alleged that neither the twins nor their mother was consulted about the compromise, and the compromise did not properly take account of the twins’ interests.

In the late 1990s the first defendant established an employee benefit ...

Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2016 #157

Taylor Wessing LLP (TW) are the London solicitors of Grampian Trust Company Limited (the trustee), a company resident and incorporated in the Bahamas. The trustee is trustee of a discretionary settlement known as the Glenfinnan settlement, settled in 1992 and governed by Bahamian law. The Glenfinnan settlement was a resettlement of certain funds from an earlier Bahamian settlement (the 1973 settlement). The first claimant is a beneficiary of the Glenfinnan settlement. The second and third claimants, her children, are not beneficiaries. In 2006 and 2009 the trustee made substantial appoin...

Legal Professional Privilege: Behind closed doors

Clare Williams and Sam Hall examine the limits of confidentiality between client and legal advisor and the implications in G v G ‘The mere act of talking to a lawyer does not cloak that communication with the protection of privilege; there needs to be a professional relationship of some kind.’ One of the fundamental principles …
This post is only available to members.

Birdseye & anr v Roythorne & Co & ors [2015] EWHC 1003 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2015 #151

Roythorne & Co (Roythornes), a firm of solicitors, acted for Mr & Mrs Dring and, following his death on 28 September 2008, the executors of Mr Dring, Mr Pola and Mr Doubleday. Roythorne & Co (Roythornes), a firm of solicitors, acted for Mr & Mrs Dring and, following his death on 28 September 2008, the executors of Mr Dring, Mr Pola and Mr Doubleday. Mr & Mrs Dring were the only shareholders of Dring Bros Limited, which had acquired Manor Farm to enable Mrs Dring’s brother and sister in law (Mrs Cooke), who were the tenant farmers, to continue to live there. Roythornes...

Behague v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 596 (TC)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2014 #137

HMRC opened an enquiry into Mr Behague’s (the appellant) self-assessment return and issued a notice to the appellant under para 1 of sch 36 of the Finance Act 2008. This notice requested the provision, to HMRC, of a client engagement letter and a report issued to the appellant by his solicitors. The appellant appealed this notice and claimed legal professional privilege (LLP) applied to the documents.

HMRC accepted that communications between a solicitor and his client were privileged to the extent they related to the giving or obtaining of legal advice, however HM...