*/
Material generated during internal investigations can be handed over to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a judge ordered in a test case on litigation privilege in criminal cases.
The SFO had been investigating British mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), since 2013 over its activities in Kazakhstan and Africa. The company, which denies any wrongdoing, resisted the SFO’s application for disclosure of documents created during an internal investigation prior to the SFO’s involvment claiming they were covered by legal professional privilege.
In SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that most of the documents could be disclosed because they had been produced at a time before litigation had been commenced or anticipated.
Litigation privilege, she said, only extended to documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not for the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation or in order to avoid litigation.
She accepted that ENRC believed that an investigation was imminent, but said that such an investigation was not ‘adversarial litigation’.
‘The policy that justifies litigation privilege does not extend to enabling a party to protect itself from having to disclose documents to an investigator.
‘Documents that are generated at a time when there is no more than a general apprehension of future litigation cannot be protected by litigation privilege just because an investigation is, or is believed to be imminent,’ she said.
Material generated during internal investigations can be handed over to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a judge ordered in a test case on litigation privilege in criminal cases.
The SFO had been investigating British mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), since 2013 over its activities in Kazakhstan and Africa. The company, which denies any wrongdoing, resisted the SFO’s application for disclosure of documents created during an internal investigation prior to the SFO’s involvment claiming they were covered by legal professional privilege.
In SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that most of the documents could be disclosed because they had been produced at a time before litigation had been commenced or anticipated.
Litigation privilege, she said, only extended to documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not for the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation or in order to avoid litigation.
She accepted that ENRC believed that an investigation was imminent, but said that such an investigation was not ‘adversarial litigation’.
‘The policy that justifies litigation privilege does not extend to enabling a party to protect itself from having to disclose documents to an investigator.
‘Documents that are generated at a time when there is no more than a general apprehension of future litigation cannot be protected by litigation privilege just because an investigation is, or is believed to be imminent,’ she said.
The new Bar Council earnings report presents a collective challenge for the self-employed Bar, remote hearings are changing and Bar Conference is back next month
Launch of the Institute of Neurotechnology and Law
Paul Magrath of ICLR recalls the chequered history of law reporting prior to the 1865 establishment of a Council of Law Reporting
Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs, has made a £500 donation to North West charity Child Concern as part of its Giving Back campaign
Gail Evans, Technical Trainer at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest trends in illicit drug use as seen in the laboratory, from designer drugs to ‘unexpected’ substances in a donor’s sample
Louise Crush explores the value you can measure in monetary terms alongside the many non-tangible benefits to working with a financial adviser
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Let’s hear it for the assessors, says Dame Anne Rafferty of the KC Selection Panel. And to make silk assessors’ lives a little easier when applicants come calling in May, Dame Anne fields some commonly asked questions
Equality of opportunity needs to start much earlier – at primary school. Jessica Powers’ lessons learnt driving diversity and inclusion in barrister recruitment and retention