Curless v Shell International Ltd

Curless v Shell International Ltd

The Court of Appeal held that the disputed email constituted standard legal advice regarding redundancy and did not evidence iniquity or dishonest purpose; thus, legal advice privilege applied and the communications could not be relied upon by the claimant.

Parties
Claimant/respondent to Appeal: Michael Curless; Respondent to Claim/appellant: Shell International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; privileged communications excluded from evidence.
Legal Topics
Legal Advice Privilege, Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Redundancy, Open Justice, Iniquity Exception
Employment Law Evidence Law Legal Advice Privilege Disability Discrimination Victimisation Redundancy Open Justice Iniquity Exception

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Curless

Claimant/respondent to Appeal

Shell International Limited

Respondent to Claim/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs of the claim referring to privileged communications should be struck out
  2. 2 Interpretation of legal advice privilege and its exceptions
  3. 3 Application of the iniquity principle to alleged discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the disputed email constituted standard legal advice regarding redundancy and did not evidence iniquity or dishonest purpose; thus, legal advice privilege applied and the communications could not be relied upon by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; privileged communications excluded from evidence.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The email of 29 April 2016 remains privileged and cannot be relied on by Mr Curless.