• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Privilege and Fraud – when can the iniquity exception override legal professional privilege?

It is a long standing principle that communications between lawyers and their clients made for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice are confidential and protected by legal professional privilege (LPP). However, it is also established that a client cannot assert LPP in relation to documents which were brought into existence for a criminal or fraudulent purpose; this is known as the “iniquity exception”.

In the recent decision of Barrowfen Properties v Patel & Ors [2020] EWHC 2536 (Ch) (24 September 2020), Tom Leech QC, sitting as a Judge in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, explored the relationship between LPP and the iniquity exception.

The application brought by the Claimant company challenged the Defendants’ rights to withhold the disclosure of documents containing legal advice given by the Second Defendant (a firm of solicitors) by way of a joint retainer. The Claimant relied on the iniquity exception and alleged that the First Defendant (Girish Patel) (who was a director of the Claimant at the relevant time) had engaged in acts which, in summary, sought to fraudulently alter the shareholding of the Claimant for his own personal gain (such plan including to thereafter place the Claimant into administration and purchase from administration its sole asset, being a property in Tooting, South London). The Claimant also challenged the failure to disclose the documents on the basis that the documents were created in the course of a joint retainer, and that neither party was entitled to assert LPP against the other. The Second Defendant law firm remained neutral to the application and stated that its position was that LLP applied unless the Court ordered otherwise.

Tom Leech QC confirmed in his judgment that the correct application of the iniquity exception was to consider whether there was “a strong prima facie case of fraud”. This scope included directors breaching sections 172 to 175 and 177 of the Companies Act 2006 in circumstances of “fraud, dishonesty, bad faith or sharp practice, or where the director consciously or deliberately prefers his or her own interests over the company and does so “under a cloak of secrecy,”’(paragraph 35 of the Judgement). The threshold for the application of the iniquity exception is considered to be lower than that of actually proving the existence of an actual fraud.

The Claimant was able to satisfy the Court that there was a strong prima facie case of fraud alleged against the First Defendant on the evidence it presented, such that the Claimant should be entitled to the disclosure of the documentation sought. In respect of the joint retainer aspect of the Claimant’s case, Tom Leech QC determined that the default position should be that the Claimant ought to be entitled to disclosure and production of all privileged documents created by the Second Defendant in the course of any joint retainer between the Claimant and the First Defendant. In any event, such documents (if any) which were not covered by the joint retainer would be disclosable pursuant to the iniquity exception. The Judgment also confirmed that the iniquity exception would apply whether or not the solicitors were aware of the wrongful purpose for which their advice was being utilised.

This case provides a helpful update as to the application of the iniquity principle where documents seem at first blush to be protected by LLP and can be a useful tool in investigations into fraudulent activity.

If you have any queries or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Jason Freedman or Heidi Wagstaff, or anyone else from the our Investigations Team.

Our thinking

  • London International Disputes Week: Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Events

  • Law Middle East profiles Nicola Jackson, Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency Partner based in our Dubai office

    Nicola Jackson

    In the Press

  • Directors’ Disqualification Under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986: What UK Directors Need to Know

    Claudine Morgan

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys represents Europlasma in its strategic takeover of Fonderie de Bretagne

    Martin Brouard

    News

  • Insolvency Administration Orders – Applications by Personal Representatives

    Daniel Moore

    Insights

  • Corporate liability and penalties under The Bribery Act 2010

    Rhys Novak

    Insights

  • Carris Peacey and Sylwia Jatczak write for R3 RECOVERY Magazine on the Building Safety Act 2022 and the obligations on IPs

    Carris Peacey

    In the Press

  • Joseph Evans, Cassidy Fan and Jessica Boxford write for New Law Journal on the future of insolvency: a digital asset revolution

    Joseph Evans

    In the Press

  • Swiss Anti-Corruption Laws: A Guide to Bribery Offences, Compliance, and Penalties

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • Stepping into the Director's Chair: The Landscape of Risk in Distressed Companies – Misfeasance Trading

    Jessica Boxford

    Insights

  • Property Patter: Challenges for commercial property in 2025

    Emma Humphreys

    Podcasts

  • AML in decentralized finance and traditional finance

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • Understanding Contempt of Court in Swiss Law: Key Provisions and Penalties

    Remo Wagner

    Insights

  • Understanding Civil and Criminal Remedies in France for Financial Crimes

    Frédéric Jeannin

    Insights

  • The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill: A Wider Category of Assets for the Insolvent Estate?

    Cassidy Fan

    Insights

  • Navigating UK Financial Services Regulation: A Guide for Insolvency Practitioners

    Daniel Moore

    Insights

  • A company can claim privilege against its own shareholder

    Emilie Brammer

    Insights

  • The United Arab Emirates – Seeking Remedies for Financial Crime

    James Colautti

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Advises SAFE Group on Successful Restructuring

    Kim Campion

    News

  • Navigating the Legal Landscape of Non-Performing Loan Acquisitions in the UAE

    William Reichert

    Quick Reads

Back to top