Blog

Lord Justice Males of the English Court of Appeal delivered a unanimous decision following an appeal brought by Raiffeisen Bank International AG (Raiffeisen) v inter alia Ashurst LLP (Ashurst).

In Re The Wimbledon Fund, SPC (In Official Liquidation) (unreported, Justice Parker, FSD 111 of 2019), the Grand Court considered an application for leave pursuant to section 97 of the Cayman Islands Companies Law to commence proceedings in New York against a Cayman Islands company (in liquidation).

In the recently released decision of AA v Persons unknown who demanded Bitcoin on 10th and 11th October 2019 and others [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), the English High Court granted an application by an insurer (the Applicant) for a proprietary injunction in respect of Bitcoin ransomed from its client (the Client).

The last of our blogs in relation to the CAA v R (Jet2.Com Limited) decision covers the Court of Appeal’s findings with respect to the following two issues: first, whether, when considering if emails and their attachments are subject to legal advice privilege, they ought to be reviewed as one composite communication, or as separate communications; and secondly, the principle of collateral waiver of privilege.

In a wide ranging decision concerning the principles applicable to legal advice privilege, the Court of Appeal has provided helpful guidance on the approach to be taken when ascertaining the status (privileged or not) to communications between multiple parties where one of the senders or recipients is a lawyer (CAA v R (Jet2.Com Limited)).

Legal advice privilege does not apply to material collected by a client (or by his lawyer on his behalf) from third parties or agents for the purposes of instructing lawyers to give advice. Where the relevant client is a corporation, documents or other materials between an employee and a co-employee, even if required to equip lawyers to advise, will not attract LAP unless the employee has been tasked with seeking and receiving legal advice on behalf of the corporation.