Sentences with phrase «purpose of litigation where»

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 (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.

Not exact matches

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.

These tasks are made exponentially more difficult in group litigations, where both the defendants and the claimants may have grounds for considering themselves the «winner» for the purposes of cost allocation.

The judge found that for the purpose of a claim to litigation privilege where criminal proceedings are said to have been contemplated, the party claiming privilege must have uncovered evidence of wrongdoing (so as to reasonably contemplate prosecution, rather than an investigation) before proceedings could be said to be in reasonable contemplation.

«The cases, no doubt, establish that such documents are protected where they have come into existence after litigation commenced or in contemplation, and where they have been made with a view to such litigation, either for the purpose of obtaining advice as to such litigation, or of obtaining evidence to be used in such litigation, or of obtaining information which might lead to the obtaining of such evidence.»

The eDisclosure Information Project is a blog by Chris Dale, a UK - based e-discovery expert who provides commentary about the rules, the technology and the practice of eDiscovery / eDisclosure in the UK, the US and any jurisdiction where the discovery of electronic documents is required for civil litigation or for regulatory purposes through his blog.

These were the decisions in the celebrated Sportelli litigation, probably the most important case on valuation and enfranchisement since 1967; another decision that establishes that a head lease can be a qualifying lease for flat lease extension purposes; a decision on the scope of the landlord's right to resist claims where the current lease has less than five years to run and the landlord needs possession in order to redevelop and yet another decision on the correct approach to be taken in determining whether a building is a house or not.

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.

In fact, the involvement of lawyers is not always required where the communicator or document is made or prepared for the purposes of litigation.

In this regard, in summary, litigation privilege exists in evidence: (i) which is confidential; (ii) which is produced in circumstances where litigation is either in progress or where there is a reasonable prospect of litigation at the time the document was created; and (iii) for which the principle purpose at the time of creation of the evidence of its author, or of the person or body under whose direction it was produced, must be to use it in order to obtain legal advice, or to assist in litigation.

[243] Where counsel becomes actively involved in arranging treatment, or in treatment decisions, or in selection of treatment providers to the extent that it becomes difficult or impossible to determine whether any particular doctor is involved for treatment purposes, or to advise counsel, the protective cloak of litigation privilege becomes tattered.

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.

I navigate these various decisions and guidelines by working in collaboration with my clients as to various ways to claim their respective inventions (e.g., claiming non-natural claim elements where needed to illustrate patentably eligible subject matter, or alternatively looking for appropriate arguments that meet the USPTO's guidelines), proper development of a patent specification that can be used for prosecution and litigation purposes (e.g., good actual, prophetic and comparative examples to illustrate the novelty and nonobviousness of the invention while still maintaining a broad claim scope of protection for future enforcement), and continual review of the client's patent landscape (via competitive and white space analyses and updates) to look for additional IP opportunities.

Where a litigation strategy detracts from the primary purpose of an organisation, something has gone wrong.