Claim to Legal Professional Privilege Lost
Barca and Wimpey had been 50/50 joint venturers through the medium of a company called DLW which had provided services to oil companies in the Middle East, including the Aramco Group. Wimpey agreed to buy out Barca’s interest in DLW on terms which included detailed provision for the further conduct of claims against Aramco, including the provision as between Barca and Wimpey of mutual assistance, information, documents and evidence. Acting on DLW’s behalf, Wimpey settled a claim in litigation between DLW and Aramco, and Barca challenged the reasonableness of Wimpey’s settlement. In litigation between Barka and Wimpey, Wimpey claimed legal professional privilege as an answer to the production of documents about the negotiation of the settlement with Aramco.
Held: The claim for privilege was rejected. The terms of the buy-out and cooperation agreement between Barka and Wimpey created such a common interest between those parties in relation to the conduct of the DLW v Aramco proceedings that there could be no confidence or privilege between Wimpey and Barka in relation to the settlement negotiations.
Bridge LJ discussed the position of a solicitor and claims to legal privilege where he had multiple clients: ‘As regards the claim for legal professional privilege, it seems to me that the general principle underlying several authorities to which our attention has been called by Mr Lincoln, can be accurately stated in quite broad terms, and I would put it in this way. If A and B have a common interest in litigation against C and if at that point there is no dispute between A and B then if subsequently A and B fall out and litigate between themselves and the litigation against C is relevant to the disputes between A and B then in the litigation between A and B neither A nor B can claim legal professional privilege for documents which came into existence in relation to the earlier litigation against C.’
Stephenson LJ said: ‘So here, it seems to me, however you define the relationship which their joint interest creates, it is enough to entitle the plaintiffs . . whether as beneficiaries, cestui que trust, or as partners in a joint venture or as principals, to the same inspection of documents relating to the Aramco claims as the defendants themselves had.’
Bridge LJ
[1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 598
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Portsmouth City Football Club v Sellar Properties (Portsmouth) Limited, Singer and Friedlander Properties Plc ChD 17-Sep-2003
Various contracts were entered into for the sale of land, with compensation being paid in certain circumstances. One contract required a calculation of consideration as a set figure less a sum to be calculated as the cost of acquiring land. The sum . .
Cited – Winters v Mishcon De Reya ChD 15-Oct-2008
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the defendant firm of solicitors acting for his employers against him. He said that they possessed information confidential to him having acted for him in a similar matter previously. The solicitors . .
Cited – Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Harrison (‘The Sagheera’) ChD 1997
The dominant purpose test applies in relation to legal advice privilege in a different way from the way it applies in relation to litigation privilege. In legal advice privilege the practical emphasis is upon the purpose of the retainer. If the . .
Cited – Ford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Financial Services Authority Admn 11-Oct-2011
The claimant sought, through judicial review, control over 8 emails sent by them to their lawyers. They claimed legal advice privilege, but the emails contained advice sent by their chartered accountants. The defendant had sought to use them in the . .
Cited – Singla v Stockler and Another ChD 10-May-2012
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his action for an injunction against the defendant solicitors to restrain them for action for a person, saying that whilst there had been no formal retainer, they had informally advised him. The . .
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Contract, Legal Professions
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.186486
