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 PI & Clinical Negligence News

AerCap wants £81m costs from insurers in missing jets case

Law360, London: AerCap is seeking £81m in costs in the dispute over hundreds of aircraft stranded in Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, according to filings for a London court hearing that began on 15 September 2025.

Social action, responsibility and negligent drivers (Hetherington v Fell and Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In a significant High Court ruling, a claim for contribution against a volunteer-run organisation responsible for arranging a sporting event, was dismissed by Mr Justice Ritchie. This decision followed a serious accident involving a participant, where the primary defendant's insurer sought to recover costs from the voluntary body. The insurer alleged that the organisation was negligent in its risk assessment processes and failed to provide adequate warning measures. The court determined that the volunteer organisation did owe a duty of care to its members. However, the organisation had successfully discharged its duty. The judgment is notable for establishing a standard of care that specifically accounts for and recognises the efforts of organisations run by amateurs and volunteers, taking into consideration legislation such as the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 (SARHA 2015) and the Compensation Act 2006 (ComA 2006). This provides important clarity on the liability expectations for beneficial community activities supported by voluntary effort. Written by Jennifer Dickinson, barrister at Cobden House Chambers.

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

MoJ introduces Public Office (Accountability) Bill with new duty of candour for officials

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to Parliament. The legislation would create a new professional and legal duty of candour for public officials, backed by criminal sanctions for serious breaches. It would establish non-means tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests, introduce a new criminal offence for misleading the public, and require legal spending by public bodies at inquests to be proportionate. The measures aim to prevent institutional concealment of facts following public disasters and scandals, applying to all public bodies and officials.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News