Sentences with phrase «privilege applied in that case»

He went on to rule that the attorney - client privilege applied in that case.

Not exact matches

In the relatively few cases where the privilege was upheld, most of these tests were not strictly applied.

This has not been the case in prisons, where Grayling has started handing down rules from on high to be applied across the prison estate, not least in the form of last November's incentives and earned privileges scheme.

The leading case applying the selective - waiver analysis is Diversified Industries Inc v. Meredith.87 In Diversified Industries, a corporation retained outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation into allegations of bribery.88 The internal report prepared by outside counsel was then produced to the SEC. 89 The Eighth Circuit held that this disclosure constituted only a «limited waiver» that did not preclude the corporation from subsequently withholding the report from private litigants on the grounds of attorney — client privilege.90 The court reasoned that a contrary ruling may undermine corporate incentives to initiate internal investigations conducted by counsel.91

``... The principle of fundamental justice which recognizes that the lawyer is required to keep the client's confidences — solicitor - client privilege» and «[a] client must be able to place «unrestricted and unbounded confidence» in his or her lawyer; that confidence which is at the core of the solicitor - client relationship is a part of the legal system itself, not merely ancillary to it» given these two statements in the case of an ABS does this mean that non-lawyer owners / managers would be restricted from accessing client files — in other words, who would «own» the information in a client file when a solicitor is working for an organization with non-lawyer ownership assuming that the solicitor - client privilege doesn't apply to the owner (s) or does this privilege apply to non-lawyer owners as well?

The SFO has a duty to explore privilege claims properly but in the present case, it appears it simply accepted the company lawyers» assertion that LPP applied even though the SFO questioned that claim and the case law supported the SFO's position that the claim could not be sustained.

However, in keeping both with the general language adopted by Lord Edmund - Davies in Waugh's case and the overriding rationale underlying litigation privilege (see Section 31.4), it must be understood as applying to documents and communications produced in many aspects of the litigation process.

In that case the proceedings were a different claim to that which a without prejudice letter had been written in relation to, but privilege continued to apply by reason of public policIn that case the proceedings were a different claim to that which a without prejudice letter had been written in relation to, but privilege continued to apply by reason of public policin relation to, but privilege continued to apply by reason of public policy.

Citing Hoopes v. Carotta, [142 A.D. 2d 906, 909 - 10 (3rd Dept.), aff'd, 74 N.Y. 2d 716 (1989)-RSB-, the first case in New York to apply the «fiduciary exception» to the attorney - client privilege, Justice Schweitzer held that «Stock *** has a right to disclosure from his fiduciaries of communications that directly correlate to his claims of self - dealing and conflict of interest.»

The Court was split 5 - 4 on the basis of whether or not, after applying this new test, the privilege clause in the Tercon case should be enforced.

The court next turned to whether one of the following defences applied: the defence of justification (the statement was substantially true) or the defence of qualified privilege (the statement was made in a protected context — in this case, during a reference check).

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.

Mr Gauthier renewed his application to the Tribunal in 2007, relying on a recent case from the Supreme Court of Canada that held that Parliamentary privilege does not apply to dealings with non-legislative employees of Parliament.

In cases where a party is or may be investigated by a national competition authority, national legal professional privilege laws will typically apply.

In some cases litigation will not be reasonably contemplated and therefore litigation privilege will not apply.

For instance, in a previous case, the court found that only a qualified privilege applied where a company that reported criminal violations was not the target of the government's investigation at the time of the report.

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.

In this case, what would allowing s 56 (3) to apply to solicitor - client privilege actually do?

The narrow approach to litigation privilege applied in the Eurasian case seems at odds with the Bilta case, where both cases were dealing with documents generated in the context of internal investigations albeit the Eurasian case involved the Serious Fraud Office and Bilta, HMRC.

On the facts in the case at bar, I find that the defence of qualified privilege simply does not apply.

In contrast to previous statutory limitations of the ambit of the privilege, for example the Supreme Court Act 1981, s 72 which only applied to intellectual property cases, this section is designed to virtually eliminate the privilege from domestic litigation.

Another useful tool in civil cases is that the 5th Amendment privilege against self - incrimination does not apply, so if the defendant refused to testify (perhaps claiming the 5th Amendment for fear of criminal consequences of truthful testimony) that refusal to testify can be used to infer that his testimony would have hurt him and to find civil liability.

In Canada, there are four kinds of privilege that can be applied to protect communications by a lawyer and a client: solicitor — client privilege, litigation privilege, settlement privilege, and case - by - case privilege.

The scope of the statutory privilege would apply in cases where the trademark agent is seeking to advise on «any matter» in respect of «the protection of a trade - mark, geographical indication or mark referred to in paragraph 9 (1)(e), (i), (i. 1), (i. 3), (n) or (n. 1)».

There is not significant case law in this area and, in one ruling earlier in the year, Ontario Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer found that settlement privilege did not apply at the proffer stage of the «immunity» or «leniency» program offered by the Competition Bureau.

The scope of the statutory privilege would apply in cases where the patent agent is seeking to advise on «any matter» in respect of «the protection of an invention».

It thus remains as true in this case as it was in Named Person that «[w] hile the judge is determining whether the privilege applies, all caution must be taken on the assumption that it does apply» (para. 47).