Claiming privilege in investigations: whose decision is it?
The recent decision of A v B and another arises in the context of an investigation by a regulator and deals with an important issue of privilege. Regulated service providers and their clients alike should take note of the decision.
The case arises out of an investigation being conducted by the Financial Reporting Council Ltd (the FRC) (the regulator for auditors in the UK) into a retailer’s 2018 accounts. The subjects of the investigation were the retailer’s former auditor and the audit partner responsible for that audit. As the regulator, the FRC has statutory powers to investigate and impose sanctions on its regulated persons. These powers include requiring the production of documents, albeit this is subject to an express carve out for documents protected by legal professional privilege.
In the course of its investigation, the FRC requested disclosure from the auditor of documents belonging to the auditor’s client. The client claimed privilege over some of those documents (which had been provided to the auditor during the audit and were in the auditor’s possession). It was accepted that the client had not waived its privilege in providing the documents to its auditor. The auditor was therefore obliged to assert privilege over those documents on its client’s behalf (provided they were actually privileged).
However, there was a dispute between the auditor and its client as to whether the documents were, in fact, privileged. The auditor determined that some of the documents were not privileged and, on that basis, had to be disclosed to the regulator.
The court was required to determine who was entitled to determine the privilege in the documents sought by the FRC. Was the auditor obliged to withhold disclosure on the basis of its client’s assertion of privilege? Or was it for the auditor to make up its own mind about whether those documents were privileged and therefore, whether or not they should be disclosed to the regulator?
The court held that an auditor required to produce documents to its regulator (in this case, the FRC) must form its own view on whether documents are privileged and can therefore be withheld on that ground. This is the case regardless of whether the privilege is that of the auditor or its underlying client. The court considered that the duty to disclose was on the auditor and disclosure could only be refused on the grounds that a document was actually privileged. A mere assertion of privilege by the client was insufficient to withhold documents from disclosure to the regulator.
What does this mean for practitioners and investigations?
This case may have a wider impact on other regulated sectors and service providers. There are a number of regulators with similar powers to investigate and request or compel the disclosure of documents by its regulated persons. However, such powers are almost invariably limited in that privileged documents need not be provided.
For example, in Sports Direct International plc v The Financial Reporting Council, the Court of Appeal found that disclosure of privileged documents to the regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in that case) was not required as the relevant statute did not override privilege. However, the current case may be relevant to FCA investigations, particularly as regards which party (the client or the regulated persons) is required to determine whether the document is actually privileged.
Subject to any appeal, the current case suggests that regulated service providers must form their own view about whether a document is privileged, and therefore whether or not it is compelled to disclose such documents to the relevant regulator. In those circumstances, it seems that disclosure cannot be refused on the basis that their client (or, other third parties) has asserted (or, might assert) privilege over the documents.
Following this case, regulated services providers and their clients should therefore keep in mind the following:
Duties of confidentiality: The service provider will have duties of confidentiality to its clients and potentially other third parties. If the service provider makes the wrong call and discloses a privileged document, it may be in breach of its obligations to its client or another party.
Dispute between the service provider and client: Any dispute which arises between the service provider and its client about whether or not a document is privileged and should be disclosed to the regulator, can, of course, be determined by the court. But that will obviously cost time, resources and money to resolve, as well as potentially damaging client relationships.
Practically, if a client disagrees with its service provider’s analysis of privilege, then a constructive engagement between them might assist. For example, the parties might want to consider engaging an independent counsel for a view on the claims to privilege. That could also be helpful if mediation was seen as a possible solution.
The ultimate backstop for a client, however, is to apply to the court for injunctive relief preventing the service provider from disclosing the document to the relevant regulator. In those circumstances, the regulator may be interested in the court’s decision and seek to join those proceedings. However, in reality, the matter is between the client and the service provider.
Terms of engagement: Clients who share privileged documents with regulated service providers should pay particular attention to the terms of their engagement. Service providers should ensure that they notify clients of the regulatory rules concerning the disclosure of documentation, which may be privileged (and clients should, in any event, ensure that they familiarise themselves with such rules).
For clients, in order to mitigate the risk of privileged documents being disclosed to the relevant regulator, it is important that all contracts with regulated service providers include wording to protect the client’s privilege. This should include an obligation on the service provider to notify the client when they receive a request or demand for documents from its regulator, and engage with the client about the status of their documents.
This should enable issues of privilege to be aired between the client and service provider and, hopefully, resolved without involving the courts. Failing this, the provision of this information should give the client enough information (and, hopefully, time) to seek an injunction to prevent the disclosure of documents they assert are privileged.
This article was first published on Practical Law.
LIDW21: A view from London and India - How dispute avoidance can keep construction and infrastructure plans on track
Join us as we discuss the challenges of the possible rise in disputes in the construction and infrastructure sector in India
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
ICC 2021 Rules
The ICC has recently updated its rules for arbitration: the new rules entered into force on 1 January 2021 (the “2021 Rules”).
The Lugano convention – the journey continues
The UK’s departure from the European Union has had the effect of leaving the UK outside of the Lugano Convention of 2007.
Adding claimants pre-service and amending outside the limitation period: pitfalls for the unwary
Sonia looks at a recent High Court judgment and its important guidance on the ability of claimants to be added to a claim before service
Joe Edwards, Simon Heatley and Lauren Kelly write for Practical Law on damages-based agreements
Law firms entering damages-based agreements face a catch-22.
Damages-based agreements: an island of clarity in changing seas
Simon, Joe and Lauren look at a recent judgment which is a welcome island of clarity in the damages-based agreement sea of uncertainty.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Insolvency Legislation in the GCC
The interesting times of the last 14 months were preceded by the interesting times of the financial crisis of 2008/2009.
Guidance where Domestic Abuse alleged
Rhys Novak quoted by Citywealth on the ways companies can combat potential issues of fraud
Is fraud on the rise and should investors be wary?
Bribery & Corruption team successfully act in Italian bribery prosecution
Helen Coward, Hugh Gunson and Guy Bud write for Tax Journal on remuneration arrangements in partnerships with mixed membership
Odey Asset Management LLP and HFFX LLP consider the law relating to remuneration arrangements in partnerships with mixed membership.
Mind the gap? Enforcing transition-period UK judgments in Switzerland revisited
A decision on an application to apply the Lugano Convention after the end of the UK’s transition period.
The rise of cost sanctions in family law proceedings (even against successful parties!)
CIS General Insurance Limited v IBM United Kingdom Limited - An analysis
Slow and chaotic – lessons from a digital transformation disaster in CIS General Insurance Limited v IBM United Kingdom Limited.
Stewart Hey featured in The Lawyer's reporting on the post-Brexit disputes landscape in the UK
Post-Brexit, the importance of making sure contracts have certainty with regards to jurisdiction and enforcement has never been greater.
Ghassan El Daye
Ghassan El Daye quoted by The National on the Dubai courts rejection of Dh1.3m rent refund claim
A convenience shop in Dubai lost its claim to a rent refund of Dh1.3 million from its landlord on grounds of lost revenue during lockdown.
Warranties on an indemnity basis: a question of damages
John and Simon take an in-depth look at warranties on an indemnity basis
Sonia Ghai writes for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog on disclosure and documents referenced in expert reports
It is well-established that parties have the ability to seek specific disclosure of documents not already provided by way of disclosure.