High Court Rules on Discovery Application
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers
| Last reviewedThis article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.
The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.
The learned Judge found that the documents related to purely administrative functions and were not passed to the solicitors for the purpose of obtaining legal advice thereon. In the circumstances, they did not attract legal professional privilege. Justice Moore held further that even if they did, that privilege would have been defeated by the 'massive prima facie case of fraud' standing against the IBC. This was so despite the fact that as the Judge stressed, the law firm being asked to produce the documents had behaved impeccably throughout and were neither guilty nor accused of any wrong doing whatsoever.
Mr. Justice Moore expressed the view that while communications to and from a legal adviser may be privileged even when litigation is not pending or contemplated, the protection does not however apply when the communications are made for a fraudulent or illegal purpose. Further, advice or instructions sought or given for the purpose of effecting iniquity was not privileged. It is important to note however that the documents were only disclosable because they were relevant to the issues between the parties and were not subject to exclusion on any of the normal grounds.
Stay Up-to-Date With How the Law Affects Your Life
Enter your email address to subscribe:
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.