In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal confirmed the rights of receivers to claim legal professional privilege.  A little over a year ago, we considered the first instance judgment in a previous TGIF article. 

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

In Wong v. Luu, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld an order requiring the production of a redacted trust ledger to the bankruptcy trustees for Luu Hung Viet Derrick (“Luu”) on the grounds that the trust ledger was not presumptively privileged and that production would not violate the bankrupt’s right to communicate in confidence with his lawyers.

The decision in Re Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) (Receivers and Managers appointed); ex parte Jones [No 2] [2016] WASC 87 confirms that while some communications between liquidators, receivers and their respective solicitors can be privileged, it is not necessarily always the case. Critical factors include the purpose of the communication in question and whether there is a sufficient commonality of interest between liquidators and receivers in relation to the communication’s subject matter.

Facts

You are busy people.  There is too much information. To try to help you identify the issues that are most important to you, we present a round-up of ten of the most significant cases and events in 2011, including Supreme Court decisions on contractual interpretation, the removal of expert witness immunity and the status of arbitrators, together with the coming into force of the Bribery Act 2010 and the new ICC Rules.

In 2014, the law of privilege was considered from various angles, with the year closing on a Court  of Final Appeal decision emphasising the primacy of legal professional privilege ("LPP") as an  absolute right guaranteed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

While the cases outlined below generally provide comfort that the law of privilege in Hong Kong  holds strong, we offer a few practical points to help safeguard the privilege of legal advice:

Hong Kong's highest court has considered for the second time in recent years the conduct of examinations under section 221 of the Companies Ordinance. That section enables (amongst other things) a court to compel any persons whom it believes may have information concerning the affairs or dealings of a company in liquidation to be examined in private under oath.

The SFC has applied to the High Court for an order directing Lehman Brothers Asia Ltd to comply with a SFC notice to produce certain records in connection with its investigation of the offer and marketing of Minibonds. The SFC notice required Lehman Brothers to produce to the SFC all documents relating to the assessment of Minibonds by an internal Lehman Brothers committee. Lawyers for Lehman Brothers objected to the production of certain documents on the ground that such documents were the subject of a claim of legal professional privilege.

The role of Jersey as a financial centre means that on occasions there will be a requirement for a foreign liquidator or an office-holder under bankruptcy legislation to obtain information or documentation from persons or companies located in the Island. There have been a series of recent court decisions establishing the appropriate levels of co-operation with other jurisdictions.

Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001

Law firm Dechert LLP has been ordered to cease acting for the principal creditor of bankrupt Russian businessman, Mr Shlosberg, because it also acted for the trustees in bankruptcy, and accordingly had had access to documents subject to Mr Shlosberg's legal professional privilege.

Facts

A High Court Master has found that the court must maintain privilege in the documents of a dissolved company unless and until there is no prospect of the company being restored to the register: Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP: [2018] EWHC 3010 (Ch).