Curtis v Curtis [2001] EWCA Civ 469 (8 March 2001)

Curtis v Curtis [2001] EWCA Civ 469 (8 March 2001)

Communications between a client and solicitor that are criminal in themselves, such as threats or menacing statements, are not protected by legal professional privilege and are admissible as evidence in family proceedings.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 469
Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Gillian Curtis; Respondent/respondent: Jeffrey Curtis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Exception to Privilege, Contact Proceedings, Threats and Abusive Communications
Family Law Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Exception to Privilege Contact Proceedings Threats and Abusive Communications

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gillian Curtis

Appellant/petitioner

Jeffrey Curtis

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether communications between a client and solicitor that are criminal in themselves are protected by legal professional privilege
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit of the father's former solicitors should be admissible in contact proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Communications between a client and solicitor that are criminal in themselves, such as threats or menacing statements, are not protected by legal professional privilege and are admissible as evidence in family proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Affidavit of Nicola Fletcher admitted into evidence for contact proceedings
  • Costs awarded to appellant for this appeal and below