Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 3): ChD 17 Dec 2001

When a barrister was the subject of an application for a wasted costs order, it was proper to require him to disclose which non-privileged documents he had had sight of, provided that the request was not a way of trying to discover what was in counsel’s brief, even though that might be an incidental consequence.

Mr Justice Neuberger
Times 04-Jan-2002, Gazette 21-Feb-2002
England and Wales
CitedLyell v Kennedy (No 3) CA 8-Apr-1884
The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to land as purchaser from the heir-at-law of an intestate, who had died many years earlier. The land was in the possession of the defendant, and the central issue in the action was whether the defendant’s . .
CitedVentouris v Mountain CA 1991
It is in the interests of the state which provides the court system and its judges at taxpayers’ expense that legal advisers should be able to encourage strong cases and discourage weak cases. ‘It is the protection of confidential communications . .
CitedRegina v Board of Inland Revenue, ex parte Goldberg 1989
Photocopies of documents were sent to leading counsel. The Inland Revenue sought their production under s20.
Held: The copies had been produced for purposes attracting legal professional privilege, and were not discoverable to the Revenue even . .
CitedDubai 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.

Legal Professions

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.167321