- High Court determines privilege in an investigation by the Financial Reporting Council (A v B and another)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- The investigation and substantive proceedings
- What did the court decide?
- DD1 & DD2—executive committee minutes
- DD3—board meeting minutes
- DD4—the risk register
- DD5—the draft chairman’s script
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: In this judgment, the High Court considered a counterclaim made by a retailer which asserted legal advice privilege (LAP) over five documents (and litigation privilege over a sixth) which the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) sought in respect of an investigation into A’s former auditor. The substantive claim is reported at A v B. The judge reviewed and applied the recent authority of CAA v R (Jet2.com Ltd) including the requirement that LAP is subject to a ‘dominant purpose’ test. The judge went on to examine each document (or category of document) and determined that none of the documents were subject to legal advice privilege. The court did, however, determine that a single ‘tracked change’ should be redacted. Written by Nick Murphy, barrister, at 25 Bedford Row.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial