company_law_today005012.jpg company_law_today005011.jpg company_law_today005010.jpg company_law_today005009.jpg company_law_today005008.jpg company_law_today005007.jpg
The core decision addressed was whether LPP that had attached to communication by reason of the circumstances and had it remained until waived, whether the privilege was lost if no person entitled to assert it at the time, had or at a request for disclosure. The investors' advanced a litany of issues - the inherent right of the identifiable client; there could not exist an ownerless right; on dissolution the foreign company's LPP did not pass to the Crown bona vacantia as at Common Law and; if it did, the Crown had disclaimed interest which extinguished the right; where no person claimed the right it therefore could not exist; there was no real prospect of restoring the company to the register and if it did, this did not require disclosure of LPP. The learned Bench discussed matters with comprehensive citations^^ - i) the rationale for the novel LPP situation' ii) separation of categorization of privilege; iii) scope and identification of the underlying policy, argued for and against; iv) the principle of confidence; v) the covert nature of LPP; vi) subject to discovery; vii) of necessity the unqualified assurance to the client of non-disclosure; viii) a list of exceptions, centering on client consent in re disclosure; ix) the absolute nature of LPP and the absence of a waiver; x) the client's objection to third party scrutiny; xi) the 'Larke v Nugus' statement that dealt with capacity requirements in re testaments. In addition the ambit of LPP; the 'iniquity exception' [fraud never attracted LPP in the first place]; the significance of LPP attaching at the time of the interview; the necessity for a search warrant to include or preclude LPP material; the Public Interest dimension and competing interests, private or public; whether LPP died with the deceased; bankruptcy; the trustee's limited capacity to waiver LPP; the statutory requirement of a legal person asserting LPP, a right-holder; retrospective redrawing of boundaries; refusals to extend LPP; the cessation of the extension of circumstances in which LPP came into operation; the shifting burden of proof of foreign jurisdiction law; the client with no recognisable interest in LPP citing *Derby; the waiving of LPP; bona vacantia arguments; definition of the disclaimer, citing *Lister, where the 16th Century disclaimer 'signifieth utterly to renounce'; and the reason why Garvin had no application as the person entitled to assert the right or waiver it.
Entitlement to waive Legal Privilege distinguishable from 'Garvin'

Company Law Today

Company Law Expertise

*Vide Lee Victor Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP Neutral Citation [2019] EWCA Civ 1600; Derby Magistrates and Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors [1999] PNLR 52 and in re Lister. Ex p Bradford Overseers and Bradford Corporation [1926] CH 149, 165; ** Garvin Trustees Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2015] Pens LR 1, leading case on LPP lapsing under dissolution; ^Sir Brian retired; ^^The learned Judge's comprehensive citations according to developed law, ranged inter alia from 1876, 1905, 1926, 1932, 1959, 1972, 1989, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016 to 2018 respectively. CLT comments - always keep the perameters of LPP in mind. For the case that dealt with the related issues of 'legal privilege' and 'litigation privilege' see 'Du Toit & Another v Stellenbosch University & Another [2015] ZAWCHC 126.
Relevant to the facts was the incorporation of an investment company funded by a group of foreign investors where an English Legal Firm possessed related documents that had attracted legal professional privilege ["LPP"] and upon dissolution had retained the LPP documents. Regarding the documents bona vacantia the Crown and it was established the Crown had not disclaimed any interest nor had claimed nor waived LPP. The investors wished to get their hands on the documents as they claimed the scheme was fraudulent. The honourable Court noted the LPP at the time the documents came into existence and posed the question - whether LPP subsisted notwithstanding dissolution. Master Clark held it did and distinguished the decision of the Upper Tribunal where it was held at impossibility of restoration of a dissolved company to the Register LPP, had. The binding precedent however had no authority in the appeal hearing and in the interim permission was sought to serve the respondent notice taking that point. The honourable Court adjourned and at the resumed instanter appeal hearing^ and the learned Judge confirmed, according to England and Wales law it was legally possible to restore the company to the Register, therefore the Court was not bound by 'Garvin'**.
Brief summary