Legal advice privilege has long been understood in England and Wales as a privilege attaching to the lawyer-client relationship. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Three Rivers District Council v. Governor and Bank of England (No 5)[1]cemented – or so many thought – the proposition that privilege could only attach to communications passing between a lawyer and a defined “client group”, and not to wider internal documents. But did Three Rivers (No 5) actually go that far? In a significant judgment in Aabar Holdings S.á.r.l. & Ors v. Glencore Plc,[2] Mr Justice Picken concluded that it did not, and that intra-client documents created for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice can also attract legal advice privilege.
‘Indefinitely’ or ‘Perpetually’: How Long Are We Doing This?
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Zaha Hadid Limited v. The Zaha Hadid Foundation[1] concerns the question of whether parties to a contract of indefinite term have a right of termination.
A Lesson on Contractual Interpretation From the Court of Appeal
In last week’s judgment in Sahara Energy Resource Limited v. Societe Nationale de Raffinage SA (SONARA) the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s surprising ruling that claims labelled “undisputed” in an agreement between the parties did not mean that the claims were agreed. In restoring the natural meaning of the word, the Court of Appeal reiterated some of the key principles of contractual interpretation that had fallen by the wayside in the court below.
The Penalty Rule: Recent Guidance From the English High Court
The judgment in Houssein & Others v. London Credit Ltd[1] provides a useful summary of the English penalty rule and guidance on its application in practice. It is an important reminder that a clause will be struck out in its entirety if any element of it is determined to be penal.
Disclosure: How the English Courts Balance Comity, Risk of Foreign Sanctions and the Fair Disposal of Proceedings
The Court of Appeal’s judgement in Various Claimants v. Standard Chartered plc[1] is a significant decision on whether an English court may compel disclosure of documents that are confidential under foreign regulatory regimes – here, US suspicious activity reports (SARs) and confidential supervisory information (CSI) – and how the court balances comity, the risk of foreign sanctions and the fair disposal of English proceedings.
Director Personally Liable for Breach of Confidence
In Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v. OneE Group Ltd, Bashir Timol and others , a company’s director was held personally liable for breach of confidentiality for signing off on the company’s marketing of a tax mitigation structure that was heavily based on information provided to it by the claimant.
On the Record: Cooley Litigation Trends Webinar Series – Competition Litigation
Join Cooley’s competition litigation team for a focused webinar for in-house legal professionals navigating the evolving enforcement landscape across Europe. This program is dedicated to general counsel, legal directors and in-house teams working in competition, regulatory or litigation roles.
Court of Appeal Rules on Termination Rights, Reversing Multimillion-Dollar Award Over Pandemic-Era Mask Contracts
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (trading as Hitex) and Others v. Uniserve [1] provides helpful guidance on: inducement and reliance on misrepresentations; the extent to which an innocent party of a wrongful termination (which is not accepted) is required to complete its contractual obligations thereafter; and notice of delivery in “ex works” contracts.
Remedy of Repudiatory Breaches – English Courts Will Take a Practical, Not Technical, Approach
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Kulkarni v. Gwent Holdings Ltd and Another confirms that repudiatory breaches may be remediable, and that the court will take a practical rather than a technical approach when determining whether a breach is capable of remedy.
Tech Contracting: How to Draft and Act to Avoid Disputes – Part 2
In the second part of this five-article series, we examine another common problem in tech contracting, when the solution a customer buys isn’t up to scratch. What causes this, and how can you draft to avoid it?