Moseley v The Victoria Rubber Co: ChD 1886

There is no general professional privilege covering communications between a person and his patent agent. Communications between a client and his solicitor who was also the client’s patent attorney were not privileged if the solicitor received them in his capacity as a patent attorney.
Chitty J
(1886) 3 RPC 351
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPrudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
CitedPrudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 April 2021; Ref: scu.376225