Legal privilege and professional secrecy—international Q&A guides

The Lexology Getting the Deal Through (GTDT) guides provide up-to-date, trusted and reliable information on key topics of law and regulation in various jurisdictions, based on contributions from thousands of leading practitioners around the world. In the case of legal privilege and professional secrecy, the Guides offers important legal insight into the protection embodied in legal privilege and professional secrecy in various jurisdictions, including the United States, Japan, Germany, France and England and Wales. In doing so, it addresses various issues, including the extent to which attorney-client communications and work-product are protected from disclosure, any limitations on this protection, ways in which privilege may be waived, the extent to which privilege may be extended in the context of in-house counsel, agents, employees, etc.

International comparator tool

The International comparator tool is designed to allow lawyers to compare legal differences across two or more jurisdictions in any given practice area. Using information from the GTDT Guides, it can generate answers to your comparison requests. This is a valuable aid to uncover issues in cross-border matters and multi-jurisdictional disputes. See: Practice Note:

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

178th Practice Direction update—in force 5 December 2024

The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have signed the 178th Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).  The amendments came into force on 5 December 2024 at 11am. The 178th PD update contains amendments to CPR PD 51R (Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) to allow for the deployment and use of new features known as ’case progression’ in OCMC for the litigant in person journey in several pilot courts.  The ‘case progression’ feature will enable the post-allocation order stages of the proceedings to take place online within the OCMC, up to and including the final hearing.  This feature will make a more streamlined and simplified online process available for users. The 178th update also makes amendment to CPR PD 51R and CPR PD 51ZB (the Damages Claims Pilot (DCP)) explaining where and how to submit a document if it cannot be uploaded or submitted to the OCMC or DCP portals.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—5 December 2024

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s publication of their new Practice Directions and the launch of their new online case management portal as well as the Court of Appeal decision in Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP ZOO (ex turpi causa and causation defences); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

UKSC and JCPC launch new websites and online Case Management Portal

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) have introduced new websites and a new online case management portal. This digital platform enables registered users to submit and manage case information electronically, offering a range of functions including applications for Permission to Appeal, submission of case-related documents and payments, case correspondence, progress monitoring, and direct communication with the Registry.

A shareholder’s personal standing to challenge dilution of shareholding (Tianrui IHC v China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd (Cayman Islands))

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Privy Council was asked to consider whether the appellant, Tianrui IHC Ltd a minority shareholder (Tianrui) enjoyed personal standing to claim against a company when the directors of the company allot shares for an improper purpose. The Privy Council was particularly concerned with the question of whether Tianrui enjoyed a private right to sue the company for a declaration that the power of the company had been invalidly exercised by the board of directors on the company’s behalf? A natural subsidiary question was whether the possibility of ratification by a general meeting was sufficient to cure the irregular exercise of power by the board. Written by Lauren Godfrey, Barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News