Sentences with phrase «dominant purpose»

[8]... The present case deals with a claim of privilege based upon the «dominant purpose of litigation» test and protection.

The question related to the second limb: was the sole or dominant purpose of the documents in question the conduct of litigation?

[10] In order that proper assessment may be made as to the propriety of a claim of litigation or dominant purpose privilege it is necessary that sufficient particulars of the documents be given.

The tension was resolved by Sir Geoffrey Vos by distinguishing whether documents are created for the sole / dominant purpose based on the facts of each case.

The Judge ruled that litigation privilege can only protect documents which are prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and that it can not protect documents produced with the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation.

Court documents state that the companies assert that the «essential or dominant purpose» of the regulation is «to effect an economic transfer in favour of dairy producers to the detriment of dairy processors by requiring the use of additional liquid milk in the production of cheese.»

In relation to this, Brandon Alcorn, project manager for global initiatives at Penn, notes that students are «using it as a job - training tool rather than an educational tool,» which clearly illustrates their dominant purpose.

[131] I find that Levant did not know that the statements he published about Vigna were false, and his dominant purpose was not to injure Vigna.

Where a workplace accident has occurred, and the employer has statutory duties under sections 18 and 19 of the OHSA and simultaneously undertakes an internal investigation, claiming legal privilege over all materials derived as part of that investigation, an inquiry is properly directed to a referee under Rule 6.45 to determine the dominant purpose for the creation of each document or bundle of like documents in order to assess the claims of legal privilege.

[53] The chambers judge erred in finding that the dominant purpose of the internal investigation was in contemplation of litigation and therefore every document «created and / or collected» during the investigation is clothed with legal privilege.

Only litigation privilege applies a dominant purpose test.

In the investigatory context, this means that documents such as interview notes between lawyers and employees should be privileged, provided they were created for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice.

This departs from the English law test in that it applies a «dominant purpose» threshold.

whether the internal investigation conducted in conjunction with counsel is in anticipation of proceedings and whether the dominant purpose of the investigation is to prepare for proceedings (if this is indeed the case).

In Hong Kong, legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications between a lawyer and his or her client where the dominant purpose of the communications is to seek or give legal advice.

Unlike Hong Kong, Singapore does not apply a dominant purpose test to legal advice privilege.

Instead, the Court of Appeal held that communications made by the client company's employees for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice were covered by legal advice privilege.

Interestingly, in 2007, the Court of Appeal left open the possibility in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore Pte Ltd) 3 that a dominant purpose test could potentially apply to a third - party report prepared to enable the client to obtain legal advice.

It covers confidential communications between a lawyer and his or her client, or a lawyer or client and a third party (such as a witness of fact, an expert witness or a consultant) where the dominant purpose is advising on, or obtaining evidence in relation to, actual or contemplated litigation.

Litigation privilege can be asserted over third - party communications where the dominant purpose of the communication is in anticipation of existing or contemplated litigation.

This was because the dominant purpose of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was to make confiscation the duty of the court and it would defeat the purpose of the confiscation legislation if orders were treated as bad simply because there had been a failure to comply with procedural provisions laid down for postponement.

Legal advice privilege arises over confidential communications between lawyer and client that are created for the sole or dominant purpose of giving or seeking legal advice, even if there is no actual or potential litigation.

The dominant purpose test is more compatible with the contemporary trend favouring increased disclosure.

While information such as the date and author's identity may well be protected from disclosure under a claim of solicitor - client privilege, such protection is not necessarily afforded claims of privilege based upon the dominant purpose test.

Lawyers should be careful not to extend blanket «litigation privilege» over documents; serious consideration should be given to whether the documentation was created with the dominant purpose of actual or reasonably anticipated litigation, just as it is with documentary discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Litigation privilege is a form of legal privilege that can be claimed over documents and information created for the dominant purpose of preparing for reasonably anticipated litigation — such as a prosecution under health and safety legislation.

Although «principal purpose» does not have to mean «the only purpose», the ET was entitled to find that the dominant purpose of the organised grouping was, at the time Danshell took over, the provision of care to a range of service users and not just CE.

In light of the Court of Appeal decision, additional steps could involve more specifically identifying documents and information over which privilege could reasonably be asserted and materials that are unlikely to be considered privileged (because they were not created or prepared for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation or receiving legal advice).

But even if this aspect of the judgment is successfully appealed, the more intractable challenge facing companies will be to show that documents created during an internal investigation — such as interview records — were created for the «dominant purpose» of future litigation.

Similarly, a plain reading of Bill 132 suggests an organization's right to claim litigation privilege over documents created pursuant to the investigation will be diminished, because an investigation is arguably conducted for the dominant purpose of compliance with Bill 132 and an organization's internal policies, rather than for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The Court of Appeal has considered more recently the ambit of litigation privilege in one of the many cases relating to the SFO's investigation into the Tchenguiz brothers, stressing the importance of the «dominant purpose» test.58 (See also Chapter 31 on privilege.)

Litigation privilege is available over information when there is a reasonable prospect of a dispute and the information is provided for the dominant purpose of the dispute.

whether the internal investigation conducted in conjunction with counsel is in anticipation of proceedings and whether the dominant purpose of the investigation is to prepare for said proceedings (if this is indeed the case).

Internal communications between non-legal employees may be privileged if they are entered into for the dominant purpose of gathering information to enable the company to seek legal advice from counsel.

But most courts have ruled that such after - the - fact remedies are insufficient: they do not adequately compensate for the injury; meritorious claims are not pursued (in part because insureds may not discover the abuse); and the potential for this abuse alone undermines the dominant purpose of the insurance relationship to afford protection and peace of mind for the insured...»

Legal professional privilege may be claimed over any communication between a client and their lawyer seeking or giving legal advice and over communications between a lawyer and a third party if litigation was in contemplation and the document or communication was created for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The Plaintiff, in the context of the injury lawsuit, sought production of the surveillance and the investigator's report but ICBC refused to produce this arguing it was privileged being created for the dominant purpose of use in the (at the time contemplated) injury lawsuit.

That «challenging» question is whether Item 4.3 was generated for the dominant purpose of use in litigation.