[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Neal v Jones (t/a Jones Motors) [2001] EWCA Civ 2000 (14 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2000.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2000

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 14th December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE HENRY: On this interlocutory application we are here considering whether any of three documents are covered by legal professional privilege which would prevent them going before the court on the hearing of this appeal.
2. I deal first with the letter of 9th May 2001. That is clearly, in my view, privileged. It deals with matters in connection with (I use the phrase broadly) the partnership dispute. There is no iniquity behind it.
3. I turn to the letter of 26th June 2001. This is equally clearly, in my view, not privileged. It is written by the claimant's solicitors to Miss De'Tedstone in relation to the partnership dispute with Miss De'Tedstone. It is obviously not legal professional privilege because it is written to Miss De'Tedstone in relation to the partnership dispute. It is not privileged in the personal injury action, nor would it be covered, in my view, by the iniquity exception.
4. In relation to the letter of 5th July 2001, that is clearly privileged. It gives advice, and again it is not for the purpose of effecting iniquity.
5. Therefore, two letters must not be referred to, nor any use of them made: that is, the letters of 9th May and 5th July.
6. The solicitors and counsel appearing in the case (that is to say, Mr Douthwaite and his instructing solicitor) may continue to act. The claimant is adequately protected by the usual order that we intend to make in this application.
7. In relation to all other issues that have been aired before us, I take the view that they would be better decided by the court hearing this appeal.
8. LADY JUSTICE HALE:I agree.
9. There is a clear distinction between the letter of 26th June 2001 and the letters of 9th May 2001 and 5th July 2001. The letter of 26th June is written by the claimant's solicitors, who are acting for him in the dispute with Miss De'Tedstone, to Miss De'Tedstone. Legal professional privilege cannot possibly attach to a document from one side to the other in a dispute. It is headed "Without prejudice" and therefore negotiation or settlement privilege could apply to it, but that would apply for the purpose of the dispute in question and I accept Mr Douthwaite's argument that it does not apply for the purpose of a quite different dispute, which is the one with which we are concerned.
Order: letters of 9th May 2001 and 5th July 2001 judged to be privileged; letter of 26th June 2001 judged not to be privileged; no order as to costs.