Sentences with phrase «dominant purpose of the 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.

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.

Litigation privilege (which was expressly not considered in the Walter Lilly case) is slightly different in that it applies to communications both between a lawyer and client, and between either the lawyer, the client and a third party, made for the dominant purpose of litigation where litigation is pending, reasonably contemplated or existing.

Litigation privilege will only apply if litigation is reasonably contemplated when the investigation begins, and any communication or document is created for the dominant purpose of that litigation.

Note, however, that in the ENRC decision, on the facts of that case it was determined that litigation privilege would not apply to material created for the dominant purpose of litigation where it was intended that the document would be shown to the other side.

Litigation privilege protects confidential communications by clients or solicitors to a third party from the point that litigation is in contemplation, provided such communications are for the dominant purpose of the litigation.

We now understand that confidential communications with third parties for the dominant purpose of litigation are generally protected by litigation privilege but not by solicitor - client privilege [ii].

Not exact matches

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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 leLitigation 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 lelitigation — such as a prosecution under health and safety legislation.

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).

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.

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.

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.)

that come into existence for the dominant purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with, or of conducting or aiding in the conduct of, such litigation.

The dominant purpose for the communication or the production of the relevant document must have been either to obtain information or advice in connection with the litigation or to conduct or assist in the conduct of it.

«Having considered the decisions, the writings and the various aspects of the public interest which claim attention, I have come to the conclusion that the court should state the relevant principle as follows: a document which was produced or brought into existence either with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction, whether particular or general, it was produced or brought into existence, of using it or its contents in order to obtain legal advice or to conduct or aid in the conduct of litigation, at the time of its production in reasonable prospect, should be privileged and excluded from inspection.»

The position in relation to interviews with third parties is less clear but an interview with a genuine third party is unlikely to attract legal advice privilege, whereas all interviews conducted for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation ought to attract litigation privilege.

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

That failure, in these circumstances, undermines the defendant's affidavit evidence, calls into question the dominant purpose for the creation of Item 4.3, and is fatal to the defendants» claim for litigation privilege over Item 4.3.

The decision re-affirms that such documents are not covered by litigation privilege and protected from disclosure unless it is proved that the dominant purpose for their creation was in contemplation of litigation.

RBS argued that litigation privilege applied: the dominant purpose of the investigation and the documents was for RBS to defend itself against HMRC whose letter was effectively a pre-action letter before claim.

Second, even if a prosecution had been reasonably in contemplation, none of the documents had been created with the dominant purpose of being used in such litigation.

Vos LJ held that the documents sought by Bilta were created for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation.

[58] For litigation privilege to apply, however, the dominant purpose of the interviews must be in reasonable contemplation of litigation.

The communications are made with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting that anticipated litigation

The relevant communication or document is made or created with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting that litigation; and

In order for communication to be protected by litigation privilege, there must be current litigation or a reasonable contemplation of litigation and the dominant purpose of the communication must be for use in the current or contemplated litigation.

This privilege applies to all communications that are made in the course of or in contemplation of litigation where the dominant purpose of the communication is the pending litigation.

For a communication to be subject to litigation privilege, it must have been made for the dominant purpose of being used in aid of, or obtaining, legal advice from a lawyer about actual or anticipated litigation.

Furthermore, where a party asserts litigation privilege over documents with dual or multiple purposes, they must take great care to establish that the litigation is the dominant purpose in any evidence they provide in support of their claims.

litigation privilege, for communications between lawyers and their clients, or either of them and a third party, for the dominant purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice, or preparing a party's case, in relation to contemplated litigation.

The Court of Appeal cautiously agreed that the purposes were not by definition independent, but stated, that, in any event, it was incumbent on the joint liquidators to establish that the two purposes were not independent of each other (and therefore that litigation was the dominant purpose) in the case of particular documents, which they had not done, and therefore the assertion got them no further.