United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others: QBD 10 Dec 2003

Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of professional legal privilege.
Held: Before legal advice privilege can be claimed in respect of any communication three conditions must be satisfied: (i) the communication must pass between the lawyer and his client; (ii) it must be confidential; and (iii) it must be for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Moore-Bick
[2003] EWHC 3028 (Comm)
England and Wales
CitedIn the Matter of a Civil Matter Now Pending In District Court for Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota CA 30-Jul-1997
When considering an application under the 1975 Act, the court must not only observe the restrictions imposed by the 1975 Act; it must also hold a fair balance between the interests of the requesting court and the interests of the witness. ‘because . .
CitedGenira Trade and Finance Inc v CS First Boston and Standard Bank (London) Limited CA 21-Nov-2001
The court considered the circumstances under which it could be called upon to assist a foreign court.
Held: It is the duty and pleasure of the court to give all such assistance as it can to the requesting court within the limits imposed by the . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 5) CA 3-Apr-2003
Documents had been prepared by the respondent to support a request for legal advice in anticipation of the Bingham enquiry into the collapse of BCCI.
Held: Legal advice privilege attached to the communications between a client and the . .
CitedRe Highgrade Traders CA 1984
Litigation privilege may be claimed in respect of documents brought into being at a time when litigation is reasonably in prospect. . .
CitedBalabel v Air India CA 1988
When considering claims for legal professional privilege, the court should acknowledge the ‘continuity of communications’. However, where the traditional role of a solicitor had expanded, the scope of legal professional privilege should not be . .
CitedIn Re L (A Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) HL 22-Mar-1996
A report obtained for Children Act proceedings has no privilege against use in evidence. Such proceedings are in the nature of inquisitorial proceedings. Litigation privilege was not applicable in care proceedings and a report prepared may be given . .
CitedRegina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Eustice CA 6-Jul-1995
No Professional Privilege in Iniquity
There was an allegation that the legal advice for which privilege was sought and resisted had been obtained in order to frustrate the mortgagee’s rights to the property at issue, because the mortgagors regarded the mortgagee bank as interfering with . .
CitedIn re State of Norway’s Application (No 1) CA 1987
There were taxation proceedings in Norway. One question was whether the Norwegian taxpayer controlled a trust which owned some shares. Letters rogatory issued by the Norwegian Court requested the oral examination of two witnesses in the United . .
CitedIn re Norway’s Applications HL 1990
The house considered appeals from the two earlier applications, upholding the first and reversing the second. . .
CitedRe State of Norway’s Application (No 2) CA 1988
The basic requirement for an issue estoppel to arise was that ‘the earlier determination relied on as raising an issue estoppel shall have been fundamental to the decision first arrived at’. The Board did not accept that an issue estoppel is . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromUnited 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 . .
CitedUSP Strategies Plc and Another v London General Holdings Ltd and others ChD 1-Mar-2004
In the course of litigation, in the course of which summaries of advice given to the defendants by their lawyers was produced in evidence. They sought that it be struck out as protecetd by legal privilege.
Held: Though summarised, the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.188687