Curless v Shell International Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1710 (22 October 2019)

Curless v Shell International Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1710 (22 October 2019)

The email of 29 April 2016 constituted standard legal advice on redundancy and did not evidence iniquity or dishonesty; therefore, legal advice privilege applies and the iniquity exception does not. The overheard conversation was not shown to be privileged information disclosed with authority, nor did it evidence iniquity. The principle of open justice required refusal of anonymity and reporting restrictions.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1710
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
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Redundancy, Open Justice, Iniquity Exception
Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Disability Discrimination Victimisation Redundancy Open Justice +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 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 legal advice privilege (LAP) applies to an internal email and an overheard conversation relating to redundancy and alleged discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the iniquity exception to LAP applies in the context of alleged discrimination and victimisation
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal and EAT correctly interpreted the privileged material

Ratio Decidendi

The email of 29 April 2016 constituted standard legal advice on redundancy and did not evidence iniquity or dishonesty; therefore, legal advice privilege applies and the iniquity exception does not. The overheard conversation was not shown to be privileged information disclosed with authority, nor did it evidence iniquity. The principle of open justice required refusal of anonymity and reporting restrictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the email of 29 April 2016 remains privileged and cannot be relied on by Mr Curless.
  • The overheard pub conversation cannot be used to interpret the privileged email.