Family Law Hub

Privilege

Latest updates

  • Appeal by a solicitor against an order requiring him to give evidence in big money financial remedy proceedings on the grounds that he was protected by legal professional privilege. Appeal dismissed largely because the evidence sought was not about client advice but third party dealings and therefore not privileged. Judgment, 27/02/2018, free
  • The husband was applying for an order that the wife's solicitor, Raymond Tooth, be debarred from acting for her in these proceedings. The application arose out of the fact that following initial contact between the wife's and the husband's solicitors, the husband raised the point that Mr Tooth was one of six solicitors his representative had consulted in November 2015 with a view to, he says, choosing which firm would be a good fit for him were family litigation to occur in London. When that litigation was in prospect, in February 2017, and it transpired that the wife had instructed Sears Tooth, he objected on the basis that Mr Tooth was privy to confidential and privileged information which was such as to conflict him from acting for the wife. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 20/11/2017, free
  • The court ruled that all dispositions of a £90 million Modern Art Collection and the financial assets of a limited company to two financial organisations should be set aside because they formed part of the latest scheme by the husband to hide his assets. This meant that at all material times those assets vested in the husband and continue to do so and therefore remain immediately available for the enforcement of the financial remedy order in favour of the wife. Judgment, 12/05/2017, free
  • The husband was claiming legal professional privilege such that his solicitor, who had arranged the insurance for a £90 million Modern Art Collection which was ordered to be transferred to the wife, could not be questioned about this matter or about the assets held in a limited company in financial remedy proceedings. The court ruled that there was iniquity such as to justify the lifting of legal professional privilege in this case. Judgment, 12/05/2017, free
  • Order requiring the firm of solicitors who were contacted by a solicitor on behalf of the mother to attend before the High Court so that, after hearing proper representations from them, the court could consider and rule upon the extent, if any, to which they should be required to disclose information relating to the whereabouts of two children. The court did not summon the grandparents to court to give information relating to their whereabouts because the court did not have jurisdiction, the children not living in or being habitually resident in the UK. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item