Three Rivers District Council & Ors v The Bank of England [2004] EWCA Civ 218 (01 March 2004)

Legal advice privilege does not attach to communications between the Bank of England and its solicitors where the dominant purpose was the preparation and presentation of evidence to the Bingham Inquiry, rather than obtaining advice on legal rights and obligations; only communications specifically seeking or conveying legal advice on rights and obligations are privileged.

Citation: [2004] EWCA Civ 218
Parties: Claimants (respondents): Three Rivers District Council & Ors; Defendant (appellant): The Governor & Company of the Bank of England
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 March 2004
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Legal Professional Privilege, Legal Advice Privilege, Disclosure of Documents, Public Inquiries

Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Legal Advice Privilege Disclosure of Documents Public Inquiries

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 16 Party arguments 2

Parties

Three Rivers District Council & Ors

Claimants (respondents)

The Governor & Company of the Bank of England

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether communications between the Bank of England and its solicitors in relation to the Bingham Inquiry are protected by legal advice privilege
2 Scope of legal advice privilege in non-litigious contexts

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Further and better list of documents to be prepared in accordance with the declaration limiting privilege to communications seeking or conveying legal advice on rights and obligations.
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.