Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In the latest interim round of the RBS Rights Issue Litigation, Hildyard J has granted the claimants’ application for disclosure of interview notes taken by the bank and its external lawyers in the course of two internal investigations into alleged wrongdoing, overcoming the defendant’s objection that the notes were privileged. The court declined the defendant’s invitation to distinguish the Court of Appeal’s controversial decision in Three Rivers (No 5) by confining it narrowly to its own facts, and re-affirmed the principle that questions of privilege are for the lex fori, says Richard Edwards QC of 3 Verulam Buildings.
This case raises the following practical considerations:
The claimants are investors who suffered losses after taking up shares in the 2008 RBS rights issue. In the substantive proceedings the investors are claiming compensation under section 90 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, essentially on
the grounds that the prospectus for the rights issue was not accurate or complete.
The application before the court was for disclosure of notes taken of interviews with employees and former employees of RBS as part of two internal investigations, one in response to a US Securities and Exchange Commission subpoena and another following
allegations made by former employee and ‘whistleblower’ Victor Hong.
The interviews were conducted primarily by external US lawyers instructed by RBS, but some were carried out by members of the RBS Group Secretariat (who were not lawyers, although they were said to be acting as agents for its external lawyers).
It was accepted by RBS that at no point during the interviews was legal advice sought or given— the interviews were part of an information gathering process.
RBS nevertheless resisted the application on the grounds that:
In Three Rivers (No 5), the claimants were the liquidators and creditors of BCCI who sued the Bank of England for misfeasance in public office in connection with alleged failures in its supervision of BCCI before its collapse. They sought disclosure
of numerous documents which had been produced for a private non-statutory inquiry into the supervision of BCCI conducted by Bingham LJ, as he then was. A special unit known as the Bingham Inquiry Unit had been set up within the bank to deal with the
inquiry and to seek and receive advice from the bank’s solicitors, Freshfields. The documents in issue mostly comprised documents created by non-BIU employees of the bank in connection with the inquiry, which had been submitted to the BIU to
enable Freshfields to advise on them as the BIU thought fit. Some of these documents had been passed on to Freshfields and others were not. There were also some direct communications between non-BIU employees and Freshfields.
As the inquiry was not adversarial the bank could not claim litigation privilege but instead contended that the documents had been created for the dominant purpose of instructing the bank’s lawyers and obtaining their advice, and were therefore
protected by legal advice privilege. At first instance, Tomlinson J agreed but his judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal, essentially on the ground that the documents in issue were not communications between lawyer and client, and that legal
advice privilege did not attach to preparatory materials, even if created by the client’s employees for the dominant purpose of giving instructions to the bank’s lawyers. Crucially, the court accepted on the facts that employees of the
bank who were not members of the BIU did not represent ‘the client’ for this purpose and their position was accordingly no different to that of a complete outsider whose communications either with the BIU or directly with Freshfields would
not be covered by legal advice privilege.
The decision in Three Rivers (No 5) has been controversial with some commentators regretting the uncertainty introduced by the need to distinguish between individuals within the client organisation who are to be regarded as ‘the client’
for these purposes, and those falling outside that category whose communications therefore cannot be withheld from inspection by the opposing party if they subsequently become relevant to an issue in proceedings.Three Rivers (No 6)  UKHL 48,
 1 AC 610
In a further episode of the BCCI litigation, Three Rivers (No 6), it was argued that the sharp distinction drawn between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege in Three Rivers (No 5) was unprincipled and should be discarded, but
the House of Lords declined to rule on the point. Three Rivers (No 5) therefore remains good law.
In spite of the obvious parallels, RBS argued that Three Rivers (No 5) could be distinguished because it only concerned what it called ‘purely internal’ documents—that is documents passing between company employees—whereas
here the interview notes had in many cases been taken by the lawyers themselves. Perhaps emboldened by the criticism it has attracted in some quarters, RBS submitted that Three Rivers (No 5) should be confined to its own somewhat unusual facts,
with particular reference to the existence of a dedicated unit within the client organisation with specific responsibility for dealing with the lawyers. RBS cited the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Skandanavia Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd  2 SLR 367 in which the court stated:
In our view, Three Rivers (No 5) should be read in the context of the court’s finding that the BIU (and no one else) was authorised to communicate with the bank's solicitors.
Hildyard J however held that the ratio of Three Rivers (No 5) could not be so confined:
The decision confirms the narrow approach taken to the definition of the ‘client’ that was latent in Three Rivers (No 5). As pointed out by Chief Master Marsh in Astex Therapeutics v Astrazeneca (cited in para 90 of Hildyard
J’s judgment), in one sense this approach is surprising because it might be thought that the involvement of lawyers in an information-gathering exercise of this kind ‘clothes the review in privilege’.
On the other hand, legal advice privilege is not the same thing as litigation privilege; it has a different rationale and it has long been recognised as having a ‘very limited character’ (Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch D 675). The
need to identify ‘the client’ has no doubt introduced a degree of uncertainty but it is not obvious that the test is any more uncertain than the ‘dominant purpose’ test applied by Tomlinson J and rejected by the Court of Appeal.
From a policy perspective, there is a balance to be struck between the protection of confidential communications with a party’s lawyers, and the public interest in ensuring that all relevant and probative evidence is made available to the court.
The problem with the ‘dominant purpose’ test is that it makes it all too easy for corporations to throw the cloak of privilege over the fruits of an internal investigation, merely by asserting that the dominant purpose of the investigation
was not to discover the facts about what had happened, but to obtain legal advice—a distinction which in many instances may appear contrived and self-serving to outsiders who have an interest in getting to the truth. Overturning Three Rivers (No 5) may arguably encourage the cosmetic overlawyering of investigations, and do little to dispel the perception of a “cover-up culture” within the corporate world.
RBS argued in the alternative that the interview notes were privileged as lawyers’ working papers (although of course this alternative claim did not apply to those notes made by members of the RBS Group Secretariat).
It is well established that lawyers’ working papers are privileged under the legal professional privilege doctrine, but (as pointed out at para 99 of the judgment) the doctrine has received very little principled discussion. The decision provides
important clarification of its ambit.Ventouris v Mountain  1 WLR 607Imerman v Tchenguiz  EWHC 2902 (QB)
Having reviewed the authorities—notably Ventouris v Mountain and Imerman v Tchenguiz—Hildyard J determined that the relevant test was whether the documents ‘give a clue as to the trend of advice being given to the client
by its lawyer’ (para 107).
On the facts of the case, the court accepted the claimants’ arguments and held that neither of the two bases on which the interview notes were said to be lawyers’ working papers was sufficient:
The judgment also serves as a reminder of the importance for a party asserting privilege to put as much evidence as possible before the court to justify that claim.West London Pipeline v Total  EWHC 1729 (Comm)
The court emphasised the guidance of Beatson J (as he then was) in West London Pipeline v Total, stressing in particular that:
It followed that a statement that the notes had been reviewed by solicitors and counsel was not sufficient—the court was obliged to itself scrutinise the basis on which that statement is made.
The judge noted the limited evidence that RBS had adduced in support of its claim to privilege. In particular the judge emphasised (at para 125) that in relation to its lawyers’ working papers claim RBS’s evidence was conclusory in nature,
and failed to describe (even in general terms) the sort of legal input which it was said had been applied in preparing the notes.
The decision is also significant because it is one of the first cases to fully analyse the English choice of law rules for privilege.
In what was described (at para 132) as a ‘bold submission’, RBS sought to argue in the alternative that the issue of privilege should be determined by US law. If successful this would have been a convenient way for RBS to resist disclosure,
since it appears that the interview notes would have been privileged under US law, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Upjohn Co v United States (1981) 449 US 383.
While (as the judge accepted at para 132) it is generally thought to be well settled that privilege is a matter of the lex fori, RBS here proposed that the court adopt a new choice of law rule. This was essentially a hybrid rule—RBS proposed
that the English courts should apply the law of the jurisdiction with which the engagement or instructions, pursuant to which the documents came into existence or the communications arose, are most closely connected, save where to do so would be contrary
to English public policy.
The court rejected this submission. Having comprehensively reviewed the authorities, the Judge held (at para 169) that the approach of the English court is to apply the lex fori to issues of privilege, and that this point had been settled since
the mid-nineteenth century.
The court emphasised that the law of privilege—the balance that is struck between the competing imperatives to place all of the relevant evidence before the court, and to protect a party’s right to seek legal advice—was ultimately a
public policy decision to be taken by the forum.
The court did however accept (at paras 182–183) RBS’s submission that the court had a discretion to refuse disclosure or inspection in certain circumstances, and that foreign law considerations might influence the exercise of that discretion
in cases giving rise to ‘some exceptional concern’. On the facts, this was not such a case.The RBS Rights Issue Litigation  EWHC 3161 (Ch)
For the full findings in the instant application and a more detailed background to the matter, see the full judgment (which can be accessed through the orange speech bubble to the right of this text).
On 12 December granted a ‘leapfrog’ certificate allowing the defendant to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen whether or not the Supreme Court regards this as a suitable case in which to revisit Three Rivers (No 5).
For further guidance on legal advice privilege, see Practice Note: Privilege—legal professional privilege (LPP).
Some of the links in the article require a Lexis®PSL subscription, click here for a free trial to access.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234