Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 1972

Legal advice given by employed lawyers to their employers, rather than lawyers in independent practice may be privileged before a tax tribunal.
Lord Denning MR justified the result primarily on the ground that, although the communications of a corporation with an in-house legal adviser were internal to the corporation, nevertheless the adviser was performing the same function as the lawyer in independent practice.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1972] 2 QB 102

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPrudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Appeal fromAlfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 1974
An application was made to inspect documents held by the Customs and Excise Commissioners. The plaintiff sought to inspect the documents to discover whether calculations of taxes were correct. The Commissioners swore an affidavit identifying . .
CitedPrudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, VAT

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.376222