Court of Appeal confirms dominant purpose test applies to legal advice privilege
It is an established prerequisite to a claim for litigation privilege that a “dominant purpose” test must be satisfied. That is, the relevant communication must be for the dominant purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with existing or contemplated litigation. However, up until now and as recently as the much-publicised decision of the Court of Appeal in SFO v ENRC  EWCA Civ 2006, it was unclear whether a similar test applied to legal advice privilege (LAP).
The Court of Appeal has now removed that uncertainty. In Civil Aviation Authority v R Jet2.Com Ltd  EWCA Civ 35, the court unanimously held that a claim for LAP does require that the relevant communication is created or sent for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.
While this may cause concern of a narrowing of LAP, the judgment indicates that the scope of the protection afforded by the privilege should largely remain the same. The Court of Appeal noted that a broad approach is taken to the “continuum of communications” between a client and lawyer and that “legal advice” includes advice on the application of the law and the consideration of particular circumstances from a legal viewpoint.
The court has also provided guidance on the tricky question of emails sent to multiple addressees and the application (or not) of privilege to these. And, like it did in SFO v ENRC, the Court of Appeal expressed dissatisfaction with the prevailing narrow definition of “client” for the purpose of LAP. However, those awaiting resolution of this long-standing issue will have to remain patient since any change will require intervention by the Supreme Court.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had criticised Jet 2.com in a press release published in April 2018. Before publication, the airline had complained about the press release and the Authority responded in writing in February 2018. In subsequent proceedings, the airline applied for specific disclosure of all drafts of the CAA’s February 2018 letter and all records of any discussions of those drafts.
At first instance, the court was required to determine whether, for a communication to fall within the scope of legal advice privilege, it had to have the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice, and whether emails sent to multiple addressees, some of whom were lawyers and some of whom were not, had been brought into existence for that dominant purpose.
The court concluded that:
- The dominant purpose test applied.
- If the dominant purpose of a multi-addressee communication was to obtain legal advice from an in-house lawyer, then it would be privileged, even if it also sought the commercial views of others.
- However, if its dominant purpose was to seek commercial views, then it would not be privileged, even if it was contemporaneously sent to a lawyer for the purpose of giving legal advice.
The court held that versions of the email created by the CAA before consultation with its in-house lawyers were not privileged. At a further hearing, the court held that even if it had found the documents to be privileged, privilege had been waived by the CAA’s voluntary disclosure of one email.
The CAA appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- While the authorities did not speak with “a single clear voice”, the court agreed that for LAP to apply, the dominant purpose of the communication had to be to obtain or give legal advice.
- Although having some different characteristics, litigation privilege and LAP were limbs of the same privilege.
- Multi-addressee communications: the court generally agreed with the first instance approach. The court held that (1) the purpose(s) of the communication need to be identified and (2) the wide scope of “legal advice” and the concept of “continuum of communications” must be taken fully into account. If the dominant purpose was to settle instructions to the lawyer, even if the lawyer was included by way of information, the communication or rolling series of communications would likely be covered by LAP (bearing in mind the narrow definition of “client”). If the dominant purpose was to obtain the commercial views of non-lawyer addressees, it would not be privileged, even if a subsidiary purpose was simultaneously to obtain legal advice from the lawyer addressee(s).
- The court also confirmed that the same approach should be taken to discussions at meetings attended by lawyers and non-lawyers at which commercial and legal matters are discussed.
- The court’s preferred view was that multi-addressee communications should be considered as separate communications between the sender and each recipient. Whether or not those were protected by privilege came back to: (1) the dominant purpose test; and (2) the realistic possibility the communications would disclose legal advice.
On the question of waiver, the point had become academic since privilege was not established in the documents. If the court had been required to determine the point, it would have held that the voluntary disclosure of one email had not waived privilege in the other documents.
The Court of Appeal’s confirmation of the existence of the dominant purpose test is useful clarification. This is particularly so in the case of multi-addressee communications, where it commonly is the case that in-house lawyers are included in email chains which cover both legal and commercial issues. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that simply sending such a communication to a lawyer for the purpose of giving legal advice will unlikely be sufficient if the dominant purpose is to seek commercial views. As the court held, consideration of LAP has to be undertaken on the basis of particular documents, not simply by the brief or role of the relevant lawyer. That said, where the brief or role is not by a lawyer, this is not necessarily fatal: a communication may still fall within the scope of LAP if it is specifically in a legal context.
The focus on particular documents extends as well to emails and their attachments. The court confirmed that, where what is in issue is the privileged status of an email with attachment(s), it is necessary to consider both separately. Even if an email is privileged, it does not necessarily follow that the attachment will be.
While the guidance is helpful, it is debatable whether it relieves, or in fact increases, the burden of parties tasked with reviewing multi-addressees communications. Parties would remain well advised to endeavour to keep legal and commercial communications separate wherever possible. The court observed that legal and non-legal contexts may become so intermingled as to make severance impossible and, while redaction may be possible, a party carries the risk that a court will find that the non-legal context predominates.
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
The Lawyer, New Law Journal, International Adviser, CDR Magazine and eprivateclient report on the firm's partner promotions
Charles Russell Speechlys promoted five lawyers to partner, effective 1 May 2021.
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