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  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.
Charles Russell Speechlys succeed in Greggs v Zurich Covid-19 insurance trial
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully act for Greggs in landmark business interruption trial
Roger Elford writes for EG on the UK restructuring regime
Is the UK restructuring regime fit for purpose?
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - DIFC
Charles Russell Speechlys contribute exclusively to Lexology GTDT, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, DIFC 2023.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - Abu Dhabi
Charles Russell Speechlys exclusively contribute to the Lexology GTDT, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Abu Dhabi chapter.
Melania Constable writes for Property Week on restructuring in the property sector
It is anticipated this judgment may open the gates to further uptake of RPs in the property sector...
Melania Constable and Jessica Williams write for Pharmacy Business on what the collapse of Testerworld means for community pharmacies
What does the collapse of Testerworld mean for community pharmacies?
Stephanie Bonnello writes for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog on witness evidence
When are witness summaries permitted instead of witness statements and when should material be struck out from a witness statement?
Administrators beware where more than 20 redundancies are planned
The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted.
Melania Constable and Georgina O'Sullivan write for P3 Pharmacy on the easing of Covid winding up restrictions
Regulations mean that a creditor can once again rely on an unpaid statutory demand to apply to the court for a winding-up petition.
Dimitri A. Sonier
Dimitri Sonier and Denis Meyer write for Les Echos Solutions on the restructuring and reform of French insolvency law
Dimitri and Denis consider developments to French insolvency law following changes earlier in 2021.
Capital Finance and La Lettre des Juristes d'Affaires report on the recruitment of Denis Meyer as Counsel in the firm's Paris office
Denis joins the firm's Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team in the Paris office.
Charles Russell Speechlys named in Global Restructuring Review’s GRR 100 2021
Restructuring and Insolvency team ranked in Global Restructuring Review
Privy Council confirms ability of courts to grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings – but beware the minority report
Georgina looks at the landmark Privy Council judgment on freezing and interim injunctions
PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon: A Warning for Directors in Breach of Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986
Georgina takes a look at PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon
Playing fast and loose with justice: estoppel by conduct
Ben and Simon look at La Micro Group (UK) Ltd and another v La Micro Group Inc and others and its impact on estoppel
Global Restructuring Review and Law 360 report on the firm's success on behalf of the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited
After three years of litigation, the Court of Appeal has unanimously accepted GP1’s grounds of appeal.
Insolvencies and rising prices: the energy retail market in flux
Hanh and Sara take a look at the energy market
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully advises the Joint Liquidators of LB GP No.1 Ltd in Lehman Brothers litigation before the Court of Appeal
LBGP is a company within the Lehman Brothers Group, whose purpose was to raise regulatory capital for parts of the Group.
Jamie Tilling writes for ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE Magazine on the ramifications of Al Jaber v Mitchell for insolvency practitioners and their investigations
The Court of Appeal has held that the doctrine of immunity from suit applies to statements made by an examinee.
Global Restructuring Review feature the firm’s involvement advising the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited in the Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal
The Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal continues with guarantor question.