Abstract
This article considers the question of which corporate communications attract legal advice privilege. Specifically, it assesses the implications of adopting, on the one hand, a narrow ‘control group’ test and, on the other, a broad ‘dominant purpose’ test for determining the scope of privileged communications. The Court of Appeal's decision in Three Rivers DC v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 5) is compared with approaches adopted in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. It is concluded that both tests have identifiable shortcomings. However, in light of the human rights implications of applying a broad test, it may be preferable to opt for a restrictive approach to identifying the corporate client in this context.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
