Sir Wilfred Greene MR said that reliance on a document was not of itself sufficient to displace legal professional privilege: ‘In my judgment, the same principle applies here. All that the deponent was doing was saying: ‘Well, I am asking the court to allow service out of the jurisdiction. I am being frank with the court. I have received certain information from Japan and I believe it provides no defence to the defendants.’ In other words, he was not relying on the contents of the document: he was relying on the effect of the document. He had to refer to the Japanese lawyers because he was under a duty to give the source of his information and he could only do so by referring to what they had told him.’
Lloyd LJ distinguished between reference alone to a document and a quotation of its content: ‘In some cases it will be hard to draw the line between disclosure of contents and the mere effect of advice’
Judges:
Sir Wilfred Greene MR, Lloyd LJ
Citations:
[1938] 3 All E R 591
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.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.344014