Prudential Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors

Prudential Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors

At common law, legal professional privilege does not extend to communications with accountants, even where legal advice is sought. The privilege is limited to qualified lawyers (solicitors, barristers, and foreign lawyers), and any extension to other professionals requires statutory intervention. The Court of Appeal is bound by Wilden Pump Engineering Co v Fusfeld, and the current rule is clear, certain, and compatible with human rights law.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Prudential PLC; Claimant/appellant: Prudential (Gibraltar) Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Special Commissioner of Income Tax; Defendant/respondent: Philip Pandolfo (HM Inspector of Taxes); Intervener: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; Intervener: The General Council of the Bar; Intervener: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege (lpp), Privilege for Communications With Accountants, Statutory Interpretation of Taxes Management Act, Human Rights (article 8 Echr), Judicial Review of HMRC Notices
Tax Law Legal Professional Privilege Administrative Law Legal Professional Privilege (lpp) Privilege for Communications With Accountants Statutory Interpretation of Taxes Management Act Human Rights (article 8 Echr) Judicial Review of HMRC Notices

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prudential PLC

Claimant/appellant

Prudential (Gibraltar) Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Special Commissioner of Income Tax

Defendant/respondent

Philip Pandolfo (HM Inspector of Taxes)

Defendant/respondent

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

Intervener

The General Council of the Bar

Intervener

The Law Society

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does legal professional privilege (LPP) at common law extend to communications between clients and accountants for legal advice?
  2. 2 Is the limitation of LPP to lawyers compatible with Article 8 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
  3. 3 Should the court extend LPP to accountants absent statutory intervention?

Ratio Decidendi

At common law, legal professional privilege does not extend to communications with accountants, even where legal advice is sought. The privilege is limited to qualified lawyers (solicitors, barristers, and foreign lawyers), and any extension to other professionals requires statutory intervention. The Court of Appeal is bound by Wilden Pump Engineering Co v Fusfeld, and the current rule is clear, certain, and compatible with human rights law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay the Second Respondent’s costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.