The true question as to whether translations of a privileged document themselves attract privilege, is whether the translations ‘really’ came into existence for the purposes of the action. ‘I think that danger would follow if the privilege against inspection were made to cover such a case as this. It does not appear to me that these documents really came into existence for the purposes of the rule upon which the defendant’s counsel relied.’
Judges:
Mathew J, Denman J
Citations:
(1886) 16 QBD 561
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Explained – Watson v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd CA 1959
Referring to the case of Chadwick v. Bowman: ‘…. the essential fact was that certain letters which the defendant had received, and copies of letters which he had written, had been at some stage destroyed by the defendant, and in order to replace . .
Cited – Sumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited CA 20-Jul-2001
Documents had been translated from the Japanese, for the purposes of the litigation. The claimant refused disclosure, arguing that they were privileged, and protected from disclosure, having been prepared for the court proceedings.
Held: The . .
Cited – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Legal Professions
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196688