The defendant bank sought protection from disclosure of advice it had received from its solicitors.
Held: To the extent that the communications were for the purpose of seeking advice as to its legal rights and obligations, the communications were protected, but not for communications seeking to obtain advice on the manner of presentation of materials to a private enquiry.
References:  EWHC 2565 (Comm)
Judges: Tomlinson J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 6) CA 1-Mar-2004
The Bank of England had sought assistance from its lawyers to prepare for a private non-statutory enquiry. The claimant sought disclosure of that advice. The defendant bank claimed legal professional privilege.
Held: Not all advice given by a . .
( EWCA Civ 218, , Times 03-Mar-04, Gazette 18-Mar-04,  3 All ER 168,  QB 916,  2 WLR 1065)
- Cited – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and Others and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd CA 23-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US.
Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should . .
( EWCA (Civ) 330, , Times 16-Apr-04)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194259