Waller LJ said: ‘To answer the question whether waiver of parts of a privileged communication waives the complete information, it is that dictum of Mustill J., as he then was, which applies. A party is not entitled to cherry pick and a party to whom privileged information is provided is entitled to have the full content of what is being supplied in order to see that cherry picking is not taking place. If this material . . had been evidence given at a trial, there really would no answer to the point that the full information should be provided in order to make certain that cherry picking is not taking place.’
Judges:
Waller LJ, Thorpe LJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 901
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Nea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .
Cited by:
Cited – Brennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Evidence
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.184603
