Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd. v Abbey National Treasury Services Plc

Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd. v Abbey National Treasury Services Plc

The redacted questions and narrative sections in the checklists either stated or unequivocally evidenced the substance of legal advice given by FSCS’s legal department, and were therefore privileged. Even if the advice could only be inferred, the three questions and answers should be read as a whole and were privileged. The application for disclosure was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd; Defendant: Abbey National Treasury Services Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Legal Advice Privilege, Document Redaction
Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure Legal Advice Privilege Document Redaction

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd

Claimant

Abbey National Treasury Services Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether redactions to documents on grounds of legal advice privilege were properly made
  2. 2 Whether privilege attaches to internal checklists containing or evidencing legal advice

Ratio Decidendi

The redacted questions and narrative sections in the checklists either stated or unequivocally evidenced the substance of legal advice given by FSCS’s legal department, and were therefore privileged. Even if the advice could only be inferred, the three questions and answers should be read as a whole and were privileged. The application for disclosure was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claims to privilege upheld for all redacted material
  • Application for disclosure by ANTS dismissed