The court considered what would amount to a waiver of professional legal privilege.
Held: Waiver applied to the ‘transaction’ in question, which might go beyond the actual document (or privileged information) disclosed, and suggested the following approach:
‘(i) One should identify the ‘transaction’ in respect of which the disclosure has been made
(ii) That transaction may be identifiable simply from the nature of the disclosure made – for example, advice given by counsel on a single occasion.
(iii) However, it may be apparent from that material, or from other available material, that the transaction is wider than that which is immediately apparent. If it does, then the whole of the wider transaction must be disclosed.
(iv) When that has been done, further disclosure will be necessary if that is necessary in order to avoid unfairness or misunderstanding of what has been disclosed.’
Judges:
Mann J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 2017 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham and Jones (A Firm) CA 28-Feb-2008
. .
Applied – Dore and Others (‘Bothca’) v Leicestershire County Council and Others ChD 15-Jan-2010
The claimants asserted rights as against the council to lease and occupy premises. They sought disclosure of documents prepared for the council by its lawyers who had previously released information which might have been legally provileged. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.244112
