Privilege/without prejudice

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

Privilege is, often, one of the most challenging issues a practitioner faces before and during litigation proceedings and, more particularly, in a disclosure exercise. It encompasses legal professional privilege, namely legal advice privilege and litigation privilege; common interest privilege; joint privilege and without prejudice privilege.

Privilege—general principles

In English law, 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 privilege in civil proceedings, see Practice Note: Privilege—general principles.

Privilege can be asserted over documents which fall into two different categories:

•
legal professional privilege (LPP), ie:
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 of privilege, including:
1. ◦
  common interest privilege, see Practice Note: Privilege—joint and common interest privilege—Common interest privilege
2. ◦
  joint privilege (or joint interest

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 PI & Clinical Negligence News

Court of Appeal guidance on class actions, lead claims, global claims and disclosure (Alame v Shell)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper procedure for group litigation on environmental issues. Allowing the claimants’ appeal against a decision requiring the claim to be pleaded as a ‘global’ or ‘all-or-nothing’ claim, the court held this was a ‘paradigm example’ of litigation which should be progressed by lead cases. The court also highlighted the importance of disclosure in placing parties on an ‘equal footing’. While the court should be alert to disallow ‘fishing expeditions’ on disclosure, it is a powerful tool for achieving justice in cases where there is a significant asymmetry of information. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

Claim for credit hire not defeated by lack of MOT (Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp ZOO)

Personal injury and clinical negligence analysis: This is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the situation where credit hire charges are claimed following a road traffic collision damaging the claimant’s vehicle, yet the claimant’s damaged vehicle did not hold a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision. Previous County Court decisions, and one Irish High Court decision, have held that such credit hire claims are unrecoverable based on illegality and/or causation arguments. In a rare second appeal, the Court of Appeal took a different view to the lower courts and allowed the credit hire charges to be recovered. It considered that the fact that the car did not have a valid MOT certificate did not prevent damages being recovered for loss of use. Further, it would be disproportionate to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

ACSO criticises government's response to medical reporting process consultation

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has expressed concern over the government's protracted response to the 2023 consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. The government plans to implement inflationary increases to fixed costs medical reports in 2025, marking an 11-year gap since fees were last set in 2014. ACSO highlights the detrimental impact on the medico-legal sector, noting a significant decrease in medical reporting organisations due to commercial challenges. The organisation criticises the inconsistency in reviewing fixed fees across civil justice, emphasising the resulting difficulties for firms in planning and investment. ACSO calls for the ongoing motor insurance taskforce to address these issues and consider the imbalance between defendant insurers and consumer representatives created by fixed costs.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News