1058:
advice to be sought and given in confidence. In my judgment, therefore, the test is whether the communication or other document was made confidentially for the purposes of legal advice. Those purposes have to be construed broadly." The judge regarded construing the rule as applying only to communications specifically seeking or conveying advice as too narrow, preferring the following scope (p. 332): "Once solicitors are embarked on a ... transaction they are employed to ensure that the client steers clear of legal difficulties, and communications passing in the handling of that transaction are privileged (if their aim is the obtaining of appropriate legal advice) since the whole handling is experience and legal skill in action and a document uttered during the transaction does not have to incorporate a specific piece of legal advice to obtain that privilege."
563:
in the case of corporate clients, was not appealed and remains good, if controversial, law in
England and Wales. In this case a group of employees of the corporate client had the specific delegated authority to seek and receive legal advice on behalf of the corporate client. Communications not exclusively between those specific individuals with delegated authority and the legal advisers, was not covered by legal advice privilege, even where the dominant purpose of these secondary communications was for receiving legal advice. The status of communications between individuals all with jointly delegated authority to seek and receive legal advice has yet to be tested, it may be that the "dominant purpose" test would apply to such internal communications between individuals jointly identified as the "client".
1100:(above, at p. 536): "The system of adversary forensic procedure with legal professional advice and representation demands that communications between lawyer and client should be confidential, since the lawyer is for the purpose of litigation merely the client's alter ego. So too material which is to go into the lawyers's (i.e. the client's) brief or file for litigation. This is the basis for the privilege against disclosure of material collected by or on behalf of a client for the use of his lawyer in pending or anticipated litigation". In
671:
there is an overriding principle that a defendant or potential defendant must be free to seek such evidence without being obliged to disclose the result of his finding to his opponent. Consequently, where a memorandum was prepared by a third party at the request of a potential defendant to enable him to obtain legal advice, the court would not order the third party to disclose the memorandum to the plaintiff, even though the third party was not at the time a potential defendant and was in effect sheltering the defendant's privilege.
1084:
principle I would think that the purpose of preparing for litigation ought to be either the sole purpose or at least the dominant purpose of it: to carry the protection further into cases where that purpose was secondary or equal with another purpose would seem to be excessive, and unnecessary in the interest of encouraging truthful revelation. At the lowest such desirability of protection as might exist in such cases is not strong enough to outweigh the need for all relevant documents to be made available."
1117:
to prepare for and conduct his case without, directly or indirectly, revealing the effect of that advice. ... But it is hard to see how these rights are infringed if a party is obliged to produce an original document which was in existence before litigation was in the air, and which a litigant or his legal adviser have obtained from a third party for the purposes of the litigation, but which the third party could himself be compelled to produce at the trial without any possible ground for objection."
976:
cover foreign legal advisers as
English lawyers, provided only that the relationship of lawyer and client subsists between them. Any other conclusion would lead to an impossible position for if this court were required to investigate the position of such communications in foreign law, but what law governs the relationship of English client and foreign lawyer, at any rate, when no proceedings are in contemplation? There is no
475:(in effect any handling or involvement with any proceeds of any crime, or monies or assets representing the proceeds of crime, can be a money laundering offence in English law) to report them to the authorities without telling the clients they have done so, subject to a maximum punishment of 5 years in jail. However, the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2005 that PoCA does not override legal professional privilege.
597:, which has stated that the policy justification for legal advice privilege rests not simply on the right of the individual to obtain confidential legal advice, but also on the public interest in the observance of law and the administration of justice. The House therefore decided that legal advice privilege was to be given the scope commensurate with these wide policy considerations. To achieve this end,
572:
their own account. The only difference is that they act for one client only, and not for several clients. They must uphold the same standards of honour and etiquette. They are subject to the same duties to their client and to the court. They must respect the same confidences. They and their clients have the same privileges. ... I speak, of course of their communications in the capacity of legal advisers.
901:(at p. 512) rejected the submission that a court should carry out a balancing exercise: "In the absence of principled answers to these questions , and I can see none, there is no escaping the conclusion that the prospect of a judicial balancing exercise in this field is illusory, a veritable will-o'-the-wisp. That in itself is a sufficient reason for not departing from the established law."
1193:, then without any other qualifying words in that document, then the addressee of the letter and the sender will not be entitled to refer to the document in the context of litigation. The rule applies not only to correspondence (of whatever form) but also to communications of any description which either are expressed to be or which by implication take place in a
939:
other business matters, the advice may lack a relevant legal context ... In cases of doubt the judge ... should ask whether the advice related to the rights, liabilities, obligations or remedies of the client, either under private law or under public law. If it does not, then, in my opinion, legal advice privilege would not apply."
619:
purpose of, actual or contemplated litigation. The litigation must be adversarial in nature (as opposed to inquisitorial or investigative). However, litigation privilege does not extend to cover documents obtained for the purpose of litigation if they came into existence before litigation was contemplated.
1215:
and if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the parties were seeking to compromise the action, evidence of the content of those negotiations will, as a general rule, not be admissible at the trial and cannot be used to establish an admission or partial admission ... the question has to
1116:
3 All ER 472. Lord
Bingham said (at p. 612): "The courts must not in any way encroach on the right of a litigant or potential litigant to seek and obtain legal advice on his prospects and the conduct of proceedings under the seal of confidence nor on the right of such a litigant and his legal adviser
1083:
AC 521. In this matter, Lord
Wilberforce stated (at 532): "If one accepts that this important public interest can be overridden in order that the defendant may properly prepare his case , how close must the connection be between the preparation of the document and the anticipation of litigation? On
670:
A third party is not in general entitled to rely on a defendant's privilege in relation to a document which came into existence for the purpose of enabling the defendant to obtain legal advice pending litigation unless there is some common interest between the defendant and the third party. However,
622:
Communication not only with legal advisers but with other agents for the purpose of existing litigation or litigation then in contemplation are privileged if the document comes into existence at the request or on behalf of the legal advisor or for the purpose of obtaining his advice or to enable him
1040:
QB 956. Here, Mervyn Davies J. stated (at 965): "I see no ground for ... allowing a solicitor to be questioned about what it is he may have received in a professional capacity from a third party. On the contrary, I think that to breach the blanket of privilege in the way suggested would erode to an
661:
The reading out of part of a document by counsel at trial, even without the client's express authority, amounts to a waiver of any privilege attaching to the document as a whole; however, mere reference to a document does not amount to a waiver of privilege. Following the rule of indivisibility of
562:
For legal advice privilege to apply, the communications in question must be between a professional legal adviser and their client with the sole or dominant purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice. The Court of Appeal judgement in Three Rivers No. 5, regarding the narrow construction of 'client'
550:
To be regarded as privileged, the communications must be confidential. Communications between a client and his solicitor which the client instructed his solicitor to repeat to the other party are not privileged, because such communications are not confidential. It is necessary that the solicitor or
459:
The right to inspect documents in
English civil procedure is governed by CPR Part 31.15. Upon written notice, the party to whom a document has been disclosed has the right to inspect that document (if such inspection would be proportionate given the nature of the case) except where the party making
925:
28 Ch. D 287. Kay J. drew the following example: "The fact that the solicitor was the person who signed a letter to the other side cannot be a confidential communication. Suppose the solicitor himself were asked that question in the witness box; he could not claim privilege and would be obliged to
1057:
Ch. 317. Here, Taylor LJ (at pp. 329–330), noting a historical divergence in the authorities regarding the scope of such privilege, stated that it was important therefore to return to the principle underlying the rule, and concluded: the purpose and scope of the privilege is still to enable legal
687:
Confidential communications between a client and his legal adviser are not privileged if made for the purpose of committing a fraud or crime. For these purposes, it is irrelevant whether the fraud is that of the client, the adviser or a third party acting through an innocent client. Fraud in this
678:
Legal advice tendered to a party, and thus privileged in the hands of that party, may nevertheless be discoverable to another party which has a common interest with the party holding the documents such that the party claiming discovery falls within the ambit of the confidence subject to which the
1013:
The protection of privilege is not intended to extend to the relationship between a person and another who is not in fact a qualifies and practising lawyer, save in exceptional circumstances like those which arose in the Calley case, which is completely different from the current case: here, the
975:
P 306. In this case, Ormrod J (as he then was) stated (at p.311): "There is nothing to suggest that intended to limit the rule to legal advisers whose names appear on the roll of
Solicitors of the Supreme Court or who are members of the English Bar. The basis of the privilege is just as apt to
938:
3 WLR 1274. Lord Scott (at p. 1,287) highlighted the necessity of a legal context for the communication: "If a solicitor becomes the client's 'man of business', and some solicitors do, responsible for advising the client on all matters of business, including investment policy, finance policy and
571:
They are, no doubt, servants or agents of the employer. For that reason thought they were in a different position from other legal advisers who are in private practice. I do not think this is correct. They are regarded by the law as in every respect in the same position as those who practice on
566:
Legal advice privilege extends to advice from salaried (in-house) legal advisers employed by government departments or commercial companies as much as from barristers and solicitors in private practice. The law does not regard the position of these employed legal advisors as being different from
496:
The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence will never be revealed without his consent. Legal profession privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the
884:
15 EHRR 137, which stated at p. 160, para. 46: "It is clearly in the general interest that any person who wishes to consult a lawyer should be free to do so under conditions which favour full and uninhibited discussion. It is for this reason that the lawyer-client relationship is, in principle,
618:
In contrast to legal advice privilege (where the relevant category of communications is broadly-construed), for litigation privilege to apply, communications to and from a professional legal adviser or third party (or between them) must take place in the context of, and for the sole or dominant
588:
All statements made at joint consultations between parties and their respective solicitors and counsel, even though made by one party to the solicitor or counsel of the other party, are privileged. So are communications made in a professional capacity for the purpose of giving or receiving
657:
correspondence, which may not be waived without the consent of both parties. A document in respect of which privilege is waived in one action cannot necessarily be used by the opposite party in a subsequent action between the same litigants unless the privilege is once again waived.
716:. The Chairman of HMRC in February 2010 criticised lawyers who exploited this difference to compete with accountants for clients, saying that he would crush any instances of law firms saying "bring your tax issues to us so we can ensure that HMRC can never get access to them".
692:, which embraces, for example, a plan to enter into transactions at an undervalue to prejudice the client's creditors. However, disclosure of such documents in such circumstances will only be ordered by a court if a particularly strong prima facie case of fraud is shown.
491:
outlook of the CPR. Privilege discloses a substantive right to keep privileged material confidential not only in the context of litigation, but generally. Privilege extends beyond a mere evidential rule, and has been regarded as a fundamental principle of justice:
584:
Legal advice privilege also applies to communications with foreign lawyers, where the necessary relationship of lawyer and client exists. It does not extend to advisors who are not legally qualified or to communications with members of other professions.
610:, the court should ask (a) whether the advice related to the rights, liabilities, obligations or remedies of the client under either private or public law; and, if so, (b) whether the communication fell within the policy justification for the privilege.
1104:, the contemplated legal proceedings were family law care proceedings, which were not to be regarded as adversarial in nature, not being based upon the rights of the parents, but focused on a determination of the future of a child.
1014:
Defendants had no good reason to believe that they were employing solicitors or barristers because they were employing
Knowles which does not profess to be offering the services of qualified practising solicitors and barristers.
631:
Litigation privilege is only engaged in the context of adversarial proceedings, which excludes investigative or inquisitorial proceedings, such as family law care proceedings. For the purpose of legal advice privilege, the term
1205:
AC 1280 at 1299 stated: "The rule applies to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence. A competent solicitor will always head any negotiating correspondence
1210:
to make clear beyond doubt that in the event of the negotiations being unsuccessful they are not to be referred to at the subsequent trial. However, the application of the rule is not dependent upon the use of the phrase
592:
The test for legal advice privilege is to establish whether the communication in question was made confidentially for the purpose of legal advice – construing such purposes broadly. That breadth was emphasized by the
1216:
be looked at more broadly and resolved by balancing two different public interests namely the public interest in promoting settlements and the public interest in full discovery between parties to litigation."
601:
could not be narrowly construed to be limited to advice on the client's legal rights and liabilities. It would be broadly construed, to include advice as to what should prudently and sensibly be done in the
674:
The court may not order disclosure of documents held by solicitors on behalf of clients who are not parties to the action if neither the solicitors nor the clients were involved in any relevant wrongdoing.
441:. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client (not to the lawyer) and so may only be waived by the client.
885:
privileged." The Court decided that the routine opening of correspondence flowing between a secure category prisoner and his solicitor by the prison authorities violated the prisoner's
Article 8 rights.
554:
Privilege does not extend to facts communicated by the solicitor to the client which cannot be the subject of a confidential communication, even though such facts have a relation to the client's case.
807:
CPR 31.6: "Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only: (a) the documents upon which he relies; and (b) the documents which (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another
139:
512:
Privilege is absolute, in the sense that once it is established, it may not be weighed against any other countervailing public interest factor, but may only be overridden expressly by statute.
732:
506:
662:
waiver, the disclosure of part of a letter pursuant to a general order for discovery constitutes a waiver of privilege in respect of the whole contents of the letter.
1360:
1383:
898:
24:
589:
professional advice, including information received by a solicitor in a professional capacity from a third party and communicated to the client.
416:
1446:
720:
1189:
mean "without prejudice to the writer of the letter if the terms he proposes are not accepted". If an item of correspondence is marked
811:
case; or (iii) support another party's case; and (c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction."
651:
Legal professional privilege may be waived unilaterally by the client. This should be contrasted with the privilege which attaches to
1041:
unacceptable degree the wholesome protection that has been provided by the law for the reasons explained by Lord
Brougham in
502:
17:
709:
1357:
1403:
434:
324:
289:
192:
753:
705:
1380:
464:
449:
409:
299:
758:
700:
Lawyers are protected by professional privilege from having to disclose advice that they may provide on clients'
202:
91:
872:, para 10. The former case gives a vivid and succinct history of the concept of privilege in English common law.
778:
644:
In both categories of privilege (legal advice privilege and litigation privilege) the privilege is that of the
527:
protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients for the purposes of giving or obtaining
329:
851:
636:
does not extend to documents produced by employees for the purpose of being sent to the client's solicitor.
768:
763:
484:
468:
728:
713:
284:
144:
106:
86:
456:) Rule 31.6. A party makes disclosure of a document by stating that the document exists or has existed.
402:
255:
159:
129:
124:
537:
protects confidential communications among lawyers, clients and third parties made for the purposes of
265:
1441:
487:
is refused, and is regarded as a fundamental principle of justice. It is an exception to the general
240:
225:
168:
81:
76:
61:
773:
245:
1181:
is not defined in the CPR itself, and so carries the meaning attached to it through case law. In
381:
230:
187:
149:
653:
430:
346:
309:
304:
250:
235:
134:
783:
472:
341:
319:
294:
220:
197:
177:
71:
870:
R (on the application of Morgan
Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
1387:
1364:
986:. The nationality of the foreign lawyer is as irrelevant as his address for this purpose."
314:
182:
115:
101:
996:
736:
724:
594:
260:
154:
33:
712:
do not enjoy such privilege, and are under general obligations to make disclosures to
648:, not of the lawyer or of the third party. Thus, only the client may waive privilege.
1435:
96:
66:
577:
528:
390:
376:
1426:
1298:
Formic Ltd v Secretary of State acting by the Export Credits Guarantee Department
727:
claimed that it should not have to disclose tax advice received from accountants
501:
It is a fundamental human right recognised by the English common law, and by the
808:
788:
740:
538:
438:
356:
335:
385:
56:
982:
366:
949:
Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs (No 2)
274:
211:
551:
barrister be consulted professionally and not in any other capacity.
505:, which has held it to be part of the right to privacy guaranteed by
719:
In July 2010, the legal professional privilege was the subject of a
1201:
rule is not dependent on the use of those word. Lord Griffiths in
1250:
Tate and Lyle International Ltd v Government Trading Corporation
444:
The majority of English civil cases are subject to the rules of
371:
701:
41:
1322:
R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Francis & Francis
735:(ICAEW) intervened in support of change, but the court's
483:
Legal professional privilege is the principal reason why
1381:
Court battle rages over legal privilege for tax advisers
1096:
AC 16. Lord Jauncey quoted with approval Lord Simon in
733:
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
1358:
HMRC on warpath with law firm over 'secret' tax advice
1069:
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5)
936:
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5)
829:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, sections 330 & 334(2)
520:
There are two forms of legal professional privilege:
999:Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mackay & Anor
739:in October rejected the extension of privilege to
479:The general nature of legal professional privilege
1274:Lee v South West Thames Regional Health Authority
460:disclosure has the right to withhold inspection.
1203:Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council
1151:USP Strategies plc v London General Holdings Ltd
1238:Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co
1139:Re L (minors) (police investigation: privilege)
1094:Re L (minors) (police investigation: privilege)
569:
494:
16:For the similar law in the United States, see
467:(PoCA) requires solicitors (and accountants,
410:
8:
1404:"ICAEW: Legal privilege rules 'unsustainable
497:administration of justice as a whole rests.
417:
403:
29:
1001:[2012] EWHC 649 (TCC) at para 17"
516:The scope of legal professional privilege
25:Legal professional privilege in Australia
895:R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B
866:R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B
800:
704:matters. In contrast, and unlike their
688:context is a wide concept extending to
558:Requirements for legal advice privilege
354:
273:
210:
167:
114:
48:
32:
854:) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
1038:Re Sarah C Getty Trust, Getty v Getty
627:Beneficiaries of litigation privilege
614:Requirements for litigation privilege
471:, etc.) who suspect their clients of
7:
1185:, Lindley LJ stated that the words
1163:Anderson v Bank of British Columbia
1127:Anderson v Bank of British Columbia
666:Other parties and other proceedings
1346:Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 7)
1226:Dinham v British Steel Corporation
606:. Where there was doubt about the
546:General requirements for privilege
14:
1286:Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 6)
868:AC 487, quoted with approval in
541:, either actual or contemplated.
437:has long been recognised by the
1177:23 QBD 335, CA. The meaning of
1081:Waugh v British Railways Board
503:European Court of Human Rights
23:For the law in Australia, see
1:
623:to prosecute the litigation.
1447:Legal professional privilege
435:legal professional privilege
325:Declaration against interest
193:Self-authenticating document
1262:Pozzi v Eli Lilley & Co
754:Accountant-client privilege
567:those in private practice:
507:Article 8 of the Convention
448:, which are set out by the
1463:
1427:Civil Procedure Rules 1998
465:Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
450:Civil Procedure Rules 1998
22:
15:
973:Re Duncan, Garfield v Fay
882:Campbell v United Kingdom
852:Morgan Grenfell & Co.
850:R (on the application of
759:Priest-penitent privilege
683:Fraud nullifies privilege
203:Hague Evidence Convention
92:Eyewitness identification
18:Attorney–client privilege
1197:situation. Clearly, the
1003:. BAILII. March 15, 2012
779:Public-interest immunity
469:insolvency practitioners
330:Present sense impression
140:Public policy exclusions
1334:Barclays Bank v Eustace
769:State secrets privilege
485:inspection of documents
729:PricewaterhouseCoopers
714:HM Revenue and Customs
608:relevant legal context
604:relevant legal context
582:
525:Legal advice privilege
499:
107:Consciousness of guilt
706:American counterparts
679:advice was tendered.
256:Recorded recollection
1114:Ventouris v Mountain
1043:Greenhough v Gaskell
911:Conlon v Conlons Ltd
764:Reporters' privilege
535:Litigation privilege
290:in United States law
1310:R v Cox and Railton
1055:Belabel v Air India
774:Admissible evidence
710:British accountants
640:Waiver of privilege
446:standard disclosure
433:, the principle of
130:Laying a foundation
1386:2010-07-24 at the
1371:, 11 February 2010
1363:2010-02-20 at the
1300:1 Lloyd's Rep 692.
1264:Times, 3 December.
1252:LS Gaz R 3341, CA.
489:cards on the table
386:trusts and estates
266:Dead Man's Statute
231:Direct examination
188:Best evidence rule
1414:, 13 October 2010
1336:4 All ER 511, CA.
1213:without prejudice
1208:without prejudice
1199:without prejudice
1195:without prejudice
1191:without prejudice
1187:without prejudice
1179:without prejudice
980:and therefore no
654:without prejudice
431:England and Wales
427:
426:
347:Implied assertion
310:Dying declaration
305:Excited utterance
251:Proffer agreement
236:Cross-examination
49:Types of evidence
1454:
1415:
1407:
1401:
1395:
1378:
1372:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1337:
1331:
1325:
1319:
1313:
1307:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1288:Times, 22 April.
1283:
1277:
1271:
1265:
1259:
1253:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1229:
1223:
1217:
1175:Walker v Wilsher
1172:
1166:
1160:
1154:
1148:
1142:
1136:
1130:
1124:
1118:
1111:
1105:
1091:
1085:
1078:
1072:
1065:
1059:
1052:
1046:
1035:
1029:
1023:
1017:
1016:
1010:
1008:
993:
987:
970:
964:
958:
952:
946:
940:
933:
927:
920:
914:
913:2 All ER 462, CA
908:
902:
892:
886:
879:
873:
863:
857:
847:
841:
836:
830:
827:
821:
818:
812:
805:
784:Right to silence
743:other than law.
580:
473:money laundering
419:
412:
405:
342:Learned treatise
320:Ancient document
300:Business records
198:Ancient document
178:Chain of custody
30:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1432:
1431:
1423:
1418:
1412:Accountancy Age
1405:
1402:
1398:
1392:Accountancy Age
1388:Wayback Machine
1379:
1375:
1369:Accountancy Age
1365:Wayback Machine
1356:
1352:
1344:
1340:
1332:
1328:
1320:
1316:
1308:
1304:
1296:
1292:
1284:
1280:
1272:
1268:
1260:
1256:
1248:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1224:
1220:
1173:
1169:
1161:
1157:
1149:
1145:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1121:
1112:
1108:
1092:
1088:
1079:
1075:
1066:
1062:
1053:
1049:
1036:
1032:
1024:
1020:
1006:
1004:
995:
994:
990:
971:
967:
959:
955:
947:
943:
934:
930:
921:
917:
909:
905:
893:
889:
880:
876:
864:
860:
848:
844:
837:
833:
828:
824:
819:
815:
806:
802:
798:
793:
749:
723:case, in which
721:Court of Appeal
698:
685:
668:
642:
629:
616:
581:
576:
560:
548:
518:
481:
423:
315:Party admission
183:Judicial notice
125:Burden of proof
67:Real (physical)
28:
21:
12:
11:
5:
1460:
1458:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1429:
1422:
1421:External links
1419:
1417:
1416:
1396:
1394:, 22 July 2010
1373:
1350:
1338:
1326:
1314:
1302:
1290:
1278:
1266:
1254:
1242:
1230:
1218:
1167:
1155:
1153:EWHC 373 (Ch.)
1143:
1131:
1119:
1106:
1086:
1073:
1060:
1047:
1030:
1026:Slade v Tucker
1018:
988:
965:
953:
941:
928:
915:
903:
887:
874:
858:
842:
831:
822:
813:
799:
797:
794:
792:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
750:
748:
745:
725:Prudential plc
697:
694:
684:
681:
667:
664:
641:
638:
628:
625:
615:
612:
595:House of Lords
574:
559:
556:
547:
544:
543:
542:
532:
517:
514:
480:
477:
425:
424:
422:
421:
414:
407:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
388:
379:
374:
369:
361:
360:
352:
351:
350:
349:
344:
339:
332:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
297:
292:
287:
285:in English law
279:
278:
277:and exceptions
271:
270:
269:
268:
263:
261:Expert witness
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
215:
214:
208:
207:
206:
205:
200:
195:
190:
185:
180:
172:
171:
169:Authentication
165:
164:
163:
162:
157:
152:
147:
142:
137:
132:
127:
119:
118:
112:
111:
110:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
79:
74:
69:
64:
59:
51:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1459:
1448:
1445:
1443:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1413:
1409:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1354:
1351:
1348:3 All ER 161.
1347:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1279:
1276:2 All ER 385.
1275:
1270:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1240:2 All ER 485.
1239:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1219:
1214:
1209:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1031:
1028:14 Ch. D 824.
1027:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1002:
1000:
992:
989:
985:
984:
979:
974:
969:
966:
962:
957:
954:
950:
945:
942:
937:
932:
929:
924:
923:Foakes v Webb
919:
916:
912:
907:
904:
900:
899:Lord Nicholls
896:
891:
888:
883:
878:
875:
871:
867:
862:
859:
855:
853:
846:
843:
840:
839:Bowman v Fels
835:
832:
826:
823:
817:
814:
810:
804:
801:
795:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
751:
746:
744:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
717:
715:
711:
707:
703:
695:
693:
691:
682:
680:
676:
672:
665:
663:
659:
656:
655:
649:
647:
639:
637:
635:
626:
624:
620:
613:
611:
609:
605:
600:
596:
590:
586:
579:
573:
568:
564:
557:
555:
552:
545:
540:
536:
533:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
515:
513:
510:
508:
504:
498:
493:
490:
486:
478:
476:
474:
470:
466:
461:
457:
455:
451:
447:
442:
440:
436:
432:
420:
415:
413:
408:
406:
401:
400:
398:
397:
392:
389:
387:
383:
380:
378:
375:
373:
370:
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
358:
353:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
337:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
213:
209:
204:
201:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
166:
161:
158:
156:
153:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:
138:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
113:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
97:Genetic (DNA)
95:
93:
90:
88:
87:Demonstrative
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
58:
55:
54:
53:
52:
47:
43:
39:
38:
35:
31:
26:
19:
1411:
1399:
1391:
1376:
1368:
1353:
1345:
1341:
1333:
1329:
1321:
1317:
1309:
1305:
1297:
1293:
1285:
1281:
1273:
1269:
1261:
1257:
1249:
1245:
1237:
1233:
1225:
1221:
1212:
1207:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:2 Ch. D 644.
1162:
1158:
1150:
1146:
1138:
1134:
1129:2 Ch. D 644.
1126:
1122:
1113:
1109:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1080:
1076:
1068:
1063:
1054:
1050:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1025:
1021:
1012:
1005:. Retrieved
998:
991:
981:
977:
972:
968:
963:at page 129.
960:
956:
948:
944:
935:
931:
922:
918:
910:
906:
894:
890:
881:
877:
869:
865:
861:
849:
845:
838:
834:
825:
816:
803:
718:
699:
689:
686:
677:
673:
669:
660:
652:
650:
645:
643:
633:
630:
621:
617:
607:
603:
599:legal advice
598:
591:
587:
583:
578:Lord Denning
570:
565:
561:
553:
549:
534:
529:legal advice
524:
519:
511:
500:
495:
488:
482:
462:
458:
453:
445:
443:
428:
391:Criminal law
334:
160:Similar fact
40:Part of the
1442:English law
1324:AC 346, HL.
1312:14 QBD 153.
1071:3 WLR 1274.
741:professions
295:Confessions
246:Impeachment
135:Materiality
82:Inculpatory
77:Exculpatory
62:Documentary
1436:Categories
1007:August 25,
796:References
789:Shield law
696:Tax advice
539:litigation
439:common law
357:common law
336:Res gestae
221:Competence
145:Spoliation
951:2 QB 102.
226:Privilege
212:Witnesses
150:Character
116:Relevance
57:Testimony
1384:Archived
1361:Archived
1228:CLY 115.
983:lex fori
926:answer."
897:AC 487.
856:1 AC 563
820:CPR 31.3
747:See also
737:judgment
690:iniquity
575:—
377:Property
367:Contract
241:Redirect
34:Evidence
809:party's
275:Hearsay
72:Digital
1183:Walker
1141:AC 16.
961:Ibid.,
731:. The
646:client
634:client
355:Other
44:series
1098:Waugh
978:forum
452:(the
382:Wills
359:areas
155:Habit
1102:Re L
1009:2019
463:The
372:Tort
102:Lies
1067:In
702:tax
454:CPR
429:In
42:law
1438::
1410:,
1390:,
1367:,
1045:".
1011:.
708:,
509:.
384:,
1408:"
1406:'
997:"
531:.
418:e
411:t
404:v
27:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.