Norris J held:
‘Although the case law refers to crime or fraud or dishonesty (such as fraudulent breach of trust, fraudulent conspiracy, trickery or sham contrivances) it is plain that the term ‘fraud’ is used in a relatively wide sense: Eustice’s case [1995] 1 WLR 1238, 1249D. So a scheme to effect transactions at an undervalue was sufficient (Eustice’s case); as was deliberate misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a mortgage advance (Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors [1999] PNLR 52, 72); or making a disposition with the intention of defeating a spouse’s claim for financial relief (C v C (Privilege) [2008] 1 FLR 115); or the establishment by employees, in breach of a duty of fidelity to their employer, of a rival business: Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd (No 2) (1979) 124 SJ 276 and Walsh Automation (Europe) Ltd v Bridgeman [2002] EWHC 1344 (QB). The enumeration of examples is useful only in so far as it enables some underlying theme or connectedness to be identified. In each of these cases the wrongdoer has gone beyond conduct which merely amounts to a civil wrong; he has indulged in sharp practice, something of an underhand nature where the circumstances required good faith, something which commercial men would say was a fraud or which the law treats as entirely contrary to public policy. (I borrow language from Gamlen and from Williams v Quebrada Railway Land and Copper Co [1895] 2 Ch 751.)’
Judges:
Norris J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2176 (Ch), [2010] 2 CLC 248, [2011] Ch 296, [2011] 2 All ER 297, [2011] 2 WLR 496, [2011] Bus LR 466
Links:
Statutes:
Limited Partnerships Act 1907 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Goddard v Nationwide Building Society CA 1986
A solicitor had acted for both purchaser and lender in a purchase transaction. The purchaser later sought to recover from the defendant for a negligent valuation. The solicitor had however discussed the issue with the plaintiff before the purchase, . .
Cited – Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors ChD 20-Jan-1998
Legal professional privilege could be set aside at disclosure where the fraudulent intention of one lay client was thereby shown as against another lender. The right to assert legal professional privilege does not apply to documents which came into . .
Cited by:
Cited – X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure) EAT 9-Aug-2018
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
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.
Contract, Litigation Practice
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424868