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
Rhys Novak
Bribery & Corruption team successfully act in Italian bribery prosecution
Daniel Moore
Case Study: One Blackfriars Limited
An informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios.
John Sykes
Warranties on an indemnity basis: a question of damages
John and Simon take an in-depth look at warranties on an indemnity basis
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: The trendy option – FAQs on tenant CVAs
Listen in for the answers to FAQs on tenant Company Voluntary Arrangements
Sonia Ghai
Disclosure and documents referenced in expert reports: a level playing field?
Sonia looks at the impact of the recent High Court decision in Zverev v Ace Group International Ltd
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: The “bubble wrap” option – FAQs on tenant administration
The team look at some key points on tenant administration.
Bruno Ledrappier
First international corruption trial held in Geneva
Bruno looks at the recent milestone for Geneva prosecutors
Roger Elford
Court clarifies the meaning of “value” within the context of s284 Insolvency Act 1986
Roger and Jess explore the meaning of “value” within the context of s284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 following recent clarification.
Dimitri A. Sonier
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully advises Europlasma on its restructuring plan
Paris restructuring and insolvency team help their client reduce net debt by 95%.
Durra Al Ali
“Subject to contract” wording in settlement negotiations: a label that sticks
Durra looks at the term “subject to contract” and how it was put to the test in Joanne Properties Ltd v Moneything Capital Ltd and another.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon and Roger Elford write for Global Restructuring Review on the latest restructuring developments in the Gulf region
Dimitri A. Sonier
The French Government extends exceptional insolvency measures related to the COVID-19 crisis up to the 31st December 2021
Many of the measures of the French Ordinance No. 2020-596 were due to expire on 31 December 2020.
James Riby
James Riby and Melania Constable write for Lexis PSL on insolvency and divorce in the time of coronavirus
Francesca Charlton
Recent case highlights the importance of correctly declaring dividends
Francesca looks at the importance of correctly declaring dividends
Kate Troup
FCA reminds firms that the fight against market abuse continues during lockdown – can you demonstrate that your policies are fit for purpose in a home working environment?
The fight against market abuse continues during lockdown – can you demonstrate that your policies are fit for purpose?
Rupa Lakha
Construction & Insolvency webinar
Our webinar gives insight into how Covid impacts termination of contracts and insolvency of a member of the supply chain.
David Hicks
Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020
Aid provided under the Act to companies holding shareholder meetings during the pandemic was extended to 30 December 2020, but what next?
Mark Howard
Public Company Update - November 2020
The November 2020 edition of our biannual Public Company Update.
Dimitri A. Sonier
Global Restructuring Review, Décideurs Magazine, Le Monde du Droit and La Lettre des Jursites d'Affaires cover the hire of Dimitri Sonier in our Paris office
Nic Couchman
Nic Couchman and Roger Elford quoted by Sport Business on building a bridge to a sustainable future for the English Football League