The court adopted a narrow definition of when documents would be protected by legal professional privilege because of anticipated litigation. Will J postulating circumstances being such that ‘no reasonable person could doubt that an action would follow’, and Charles J defining a case in which litigation was reasonably apprehended as being one ‘when there is a high probability, amounting to certainty, that an action will ensue’.
Judges:
Wills J, Charles J
Citations:
(1893) 68 LT NS 831
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and Others and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd CA 23-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US.
Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Evidence
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.195747