*/
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 Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control