Privilege/without prejudice

This overview is a guide and introduction to our suite of documents on privilege and takes the reader through the main principles.

Dealing with aspects of privilege can be one of the most challenging issues a practitioner faces before and during litigation proceedings and, more particularly, during a disclosure exercise. The term ‘legal professional privilege’ comprises the two main strands of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege; and there are related concepts of common interest privilege; joint (or joint interest) privilege and without prejudice privilege to consider too.

Privilege—general principles

In English law, legal professional privilege is a fundamental right allowing a party, or its successors in title, to withhold from production certain documents. For an introduction to the general principles of legal professional privilege in civil proceedings, see Practice Note: Privilege—general principles.

Privilege can be asserted over documents which fall into these categories:

•
legal professional privilege (LPP), split between:
1. ◦
  legal advice privilege, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings—Legal advice privilege
2. ◦
  litigation privilege, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings—Litigation privilege
•
other forms

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Ministry of Justice publishes summary of responses to Open Justice Call for Evidence

The Ministry of Justice has published a summary of responses to its Call for Evidence on 'Open Justice: the way forward', which was issued on 11 May 2023. The document outlines feedback from 131 respondents across various stakeholder groups. Key themes include the reaffirmation of the open justice principle, calls for improved access to court listings and documents and discussions on the implications of remote observation and livestreaming of court proceedings. Respondents emphasised the need for greater transparency in the Single Justice Procedure and supported the centralisation of judgment publications. The summary also highlights the importance of enhancing public understanding of the justice system and making court information available in machine-readable formats.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s updated guidance on the Damages Claims pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZB and the Court of Appeal decision in Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Patel (damages); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

No police duty to protect from third party harm—applying the Tindall principles (Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock, HD and others v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this conjoined appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect Ms Woodcock and CJ from harm caused by a third party; and whether the police’s investigative duty, pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, can arise before the claimant has suffered ill treatment at the hands of a third party. This decision represents the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has been asked to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and has provided some important points of practical application to practitioners in this area. Written by Jennie Oborne, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Amendments in retrospect—Repair or replace? (R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)

Commercial analysis: An appeal was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the correct characterisation of a contract. The dispute related to whether two parties had varied an existing contract or rescinded and replaced it with a new one. The Court reviewed the applicable principles and decided that the agreements in question did constitute new agreements rescinding and replacing the former contracts. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News