*/
Material generated during internal investigations can be handed over to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a judge ordered in a test case on litigation privilege in criminal cases.
The SFO had been investigating British mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), since 2013 over its activities in Kazakhstan and Africa. The company, which denies any wrongdoing, resisted the SFO’s application for disclosure of documents created during an internal investigation prior to the SFO’s involvment claiming they were covered by legal professional privilege.
In SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that most of the documents could be disclosed because they had been produced at a time before litigation had been commenced or anticipated.
Litigation privilege, she said, only extended to documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not for the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation or in order to avoid litigation.
She accepted that ENRC believed that an investigation was imminent, but said that such an investigation was not ‘adversarial litigation’.
‘The policy that justifies litigation privilege does not extend to enabling a party to protect itself from having to disclose documents to an investigator.
‘Documents that are generated at a time when there is no more than a general apprehension of future litigation cannot be protected by litigation privilege just because an investigation is, or is believed to be imminent,’ she said.
Material generated during internal investigations can be handed over to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a judge ordered in a test case on litigation privilege in criminal cases.
The SFO had been investigating British mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), since 2013 over its activities in Kazakhstan and Africa. The company, which denies any wrongdoing, resisted the SFO’s application for disclosure of documents created during an internal investigation prior to the SFO’s involvment claiming they were covered by legal professional privilege.
In SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that most of the documents could be disclosed because they had been produced at a time before litigation had been commenced or anticipated.
Litigation privilege, she said, only extended to documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not for the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation or in order to avoid litigation.
She accepted that ENRC believed that an investigation was imminent, but said that such an investigation was not ‘adversarial litigation’.
‘The policy that justifies litigation privilege does not extend to enabling a party to protect itself from having to disclose documents to an investigator.
‘Documents that are generated at a time when there is no more than a general apprehension of future litigation cannot be protected by litigation privilege just because an investigation is, or is believed to be imminent,’ she said.
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series