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
Three recent judgments dealing with the already tricky concept of privilege have produced an increasingly rocky terrain for those advising corporates on internal investigations to navigate.
Last year saw the first: the judgment of Andrews J in the, now infamous, SFO v ENRC  EWHC 1017 (QB) case . Among other things, Andrews J held that:
The issue arose because ENRC, realising it had a potential issue, conducted internal investigations and engaged with the SFO with a view to self-reporting conduct. The SFO subsequently commenced a criminal investigation and sought disclosure of material
produced during the course of the company’s investigation.
Andrews J rejected ENRC’s argument that, in these circumstances, the anticipation of an SFO investigation was enough to make out a claim for litigation privilege. She also held that none of the disputed documents was created for the dominant
purpose of deployment in, or obtaining legal advice relating to, the conduct of such anticipated criminal proceedings.
In the case which followed, late last year (Bilta (UK) Ltd v Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc  EWHC 3635 (Ch)), it had been conceded that the documents (records of internal interviews) in respect of which disclosure was sought by the claimant,
had been brought into being when litigation was in contemplation ie after it had been first communicated to the defendant by HMRC that there might be grounds on which HMRC would deny the defendant’s VAT reclaim, worth nearly £90m. The
issue was therefore whether this was the dominant purpose behind the creation of the documents. Practitioners breathed a small sigh of relief when Vos LJ (Chancellor of the High Court) held that this is a question of fact in each case and that,
although both SFO v ENRC and the instant case involved internal investigations by corporates in the face of scrutiny by government authorities, the communication from HMRC in this case put the investigation on a different footing: it was a
‘watershed moment’. Therefore, there was hope that, Andrews J earlier judgment would be confined to its facts.
Then, earlier this week, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in Health and Safety Executive v Jukes  EWCA Crim 176 was published. This judgment serves to reinforce Andrews J’s judgment and suggests that the categories
of documents to which privilege will attach may be even narrower. In this case, a statement had been made by the appellant in the aftermath of a fatal workplace incident, as part of an internal investigation led by solicitors instructed by the company.
The appellant was appealing his conviction, which had followed the admission of this evidence, in his criminal trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division applied the reasoning of Andrews J in SFO v ENRC to conclude that the witness statement
was not privileged:
Note, the decision in SFO v ENRC is subject to an appeal, due to be heard by the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal in July 2018. However, in light of this recent judgment by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) it is difficult to foresee
a wholescale departure from the decision of the High Court on this particular issue.
This changeable landscape is only making it more difficult for those advising on issues such as privilege in internal investigations. The continuing uncertainty of what documents and material will or will not be covered and in what circumstances inevitably
leads to a reduction in scope and depth of material being created during the course of such investigations. This in turn may mean that investigations, at least in written form, may not be as detailed or comprehensive as they might have been, due to
concerns over privilege.
LexisPSL Corporate Crime subscribers can read further guidance on Legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings. LexisPSL
Dispute Resolution subscribers can read further guidance on Privilege—legal professional privilege (LPP).
If you are not a subscriber, you can take a free trial here.
This blog was co-authored by Sian Cross, Head of Corporate Crime and Gillian Bradbury.
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