Curtis v Curtis: CA 8 Mar 2001

The mother sought leave to call in evidence in proceedings for contact, an affidavit sworn by the father’s previous solicitors when applying to be removed from the record, which related the contents of telephone calls from the father to their offices. The affidavit had been served by mistake on the mother’s solicitors. It showed the husband to have a violent nature.
Held: The evidence was to be admitted. The communications with the solicitors were not part of any attempt to obtain legal advice and were not privileged, and in the course of the conversations the father had committed offences under the 1984 Act.
[2001] EWCA Civ 469
Bailii
Telecommunications Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .
CitedBalabel v Air India CA 1988
When considering claims for legal professional privilege, the court should acknowledge the ‘continuity of communications’. However, where the traditional role of a solicitor had expanded, the scope of legal professional privilege should not be . .
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Rogers (Legal Professional Privilege) Admn 2-Feb-1999
The police had sought disclosure from the applicant’s solicitors of records of the time at which the applicant arrived at the solicitors’ premises on a particular date and like documents.
Held: Such records are not privileged because they did . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.200873