Barclays Bank Plc v Eustice: CA 6 Jul 1995

No Professional Privilege in Iniquity

There was an allegation that the legal advice for which privilege was sought and resisted had been obtained in order to frustrate the mortgagee’s rights to the property at issue, because the mortgagors regarded the mortgagee bank as interfering with family assets.
Held: No professional legal privilege existed for a lawyer client communication ‘in iniquity’, though before disclosure was ordered there should be a strong prima facie case of criminal or fraudulent conduct.
The burden of proof of iniquity lay on the party asserting it.
Schiemann LJ said:

Butler-Sloss, Aldous, Schiemann LJJ
Times 03-Aug-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1238, [1995] EWCA Civ 29, [1995] 2 BCLC 630, [1995] BCC 978, [1995] 4 All ER 511
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedUnited States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others QBD 10-Dec-2003
Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of . .
CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
CitedX v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure) EAT 9-Aug-2018
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.78200