New Zealand: Privilege update – two new decisions from the UK

Two recent English cases have further addressed legal privileges discussed in two previous Brief Counsels: the operation of "without prejudice" communications and the ambit of legal professional privilege.

These decisions are significant and are likely to be considered in due course by the New Zealand courts.

The cases

The cases in point are:

  • Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd & Ors [2010] UKSC 44 (27 October 2010) in which the UK Supreme Court confirmed that regard may be had to without prejudice communications in interpreting contracts, such as a settlement agreement, and
  • R (on the application of Prudential PLC and Anor) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1094 (13 October 2010) in which the English Court of Appeal declined to extend legal professional privilege to chartered accountants giving legal advice on tax matters.


This decision involved a full bench of seven judges, instead of the usual five.

The basic facts were that the two parties had entered into settlement negotiations on a without prejudice basis, including two full days of meetings culminating in a written settlement agreement. There was no issue between the parties around the existence or terms of the settlement agreement, and the case did not involve an application for rectification.

There was, however, a dispute between the parties as to the true construction of one of the terms of the agreement. The question for decision was whether it is permissible to refer to anything written or said in the course of the without prejudice negotiations as an aid to the interpretation of the agreement.

All seven judges agreed that background facts communicated between the parties as part of without prejudice negotiations are admissible for the purposes of interpreting any settlement agreement resulting from the without prejudice negotiations.

The lead judgment was given by Lord Clarke, with whose judgment five of the other judges joined. Lord Phillips gave a separate concurring judgment. Lord Phillips' judgment consisted of a single paragraph, but it summarised the reasoning nicely (at [48]):

The principle to be derived from this appeal can be shortly stated. When construing a contract between two parties, evidence of facts within their common knowledge is admissible where those facts have a bearing on the meaning that should be given to the words of the contract. This is so even where the knowledge of those facts is conveyed by one party to the other in the course of negotiations that are conducted "without prejudice". This principle applies both in the case of a contract that results from the without prejudice negotiations and in the case of any other subsequent contract concluded between the same parties. Accordingly I would allow this appeal.
In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court has followed the general approach to the exclusionary rule on the admissibility of prior negotiations reaffirmed in Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101 (HL), one of the final decisions to be handed down by the House of Lords. In that case, Lord Hoffmann confirmed that, while recourse to prior negotiations was prima facie excluded as part of an interpretation exercise, this would not be the case where such evidence is used "to establish that a fact which may be relevant as background was known to the parties, or to support a claim for rectification or estoppel" at [42].

The Oceanbulk approach may well be adopted in New Zealand in due course. A difference is that New Zealand's privilege laws are now codified. Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, which codifies the without prejudice rule, provides that a party to a civil dispute has a "privilege in respect of any communication between that person and any other person who is a party to the dispute if the communication: ... (b) was made in connection with an attempt to settle or mediate the dispute between the persons".

This provision does not expressly provide that the effect of this privilege is to preclude assistance in the interpretation of a subsequent settlement agreement (particularly when read in light of s 7, which provides that all relevant evidence is admissible unless specifically declared inadmissible). Whether s 57 could be read down to allow use of without privilege communications for interpretation purposes is, in our view, a question for the New Zealand courts to determine.

It would be in keeping with the New Zealand Supreme Court's expansive (if not altogether coherent) approach to the admissibility of evidence of prior negotiations in Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5, in which – albeit based on different reasoning – all five judges had regard to what appeared to be pre-contractual negotiations. In particular, Tipping J's approach, which emphasised that "objective evidence directed to the context, factual or linguistic, in which the negotiations were taking place...can properly inform an objective approach to meaning" (at [29]), and that "[s]uch evidence includes any objectively apparent consensus as to meaning operating between the parties", is consistent with the reasoning in Oceanbulk.

R v Special Commissioner of Income Tax

Turning from without prejudice communications to legal professional privilege (LPP), the English Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that LPP applies only to advice given by qualified lawyers, in refusing an application to extend LPP to chartered accountants giving legal advice on tax matters. Following the recent disquiet in the UK after the ECJ's denial of privilege for in-house counsel, the decision provides a detailed discussion of the policy grounds behind LPP.

The case arose in the context of a judicial review, with Prudential seeking to quash a number of notices to produce documents issued by the Special Commissioner under s 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970. Prudential sought to resist production of the documents on the basis they were legally privileged, it being settled law that s 20 does not override the protection of privilege. What made the case interesting, however (as well as sufficiently controversial to include the UK's Institute of Chartered Accountants, Bar Council and Law Society as interveners), was that Prudential argued that the legal advice they received on tax matters from the chartered accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) ought also to be considered privileged.

In essence, Prudential argued that the Court should revisit the law of privilege to establish that it turned on the function of a person engaged in giving legal advice, rather than their status as a qualified lawyer or otherwise. At first instance, Charles J accepted that there is "real strength in the argument that the extent of the right to refuse disclosure should not relate to the nature of the legal qualification of the person giving the advice". He went on, however, to hold that he was bound by precedent to the position that privilege was only available to clients of lawyers, not those of accountants.

Writing the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lloyd LJ held that it too was bound by precedent, but even were it not, the extension of the law Prudential sought was one appropriately to be made by Parliament. Citing recommendations by various committees on the issue that have not been taken up by the legislature, Lloyd LJ concluded that "Parliament's failure to change the law in this respect is not an accident". This is further demonstrated by the existence of some limited statutory extensions of privilege to those outside the legal profession, such as trade mark agents and licensed conveyancers. Lloyd LJ also noted that the difficulty of accurately and succinctly defining who is an "accountant" makes it a project much more appropriate for the legislature.

At the level of principle, Lloyd LJ cited Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch 317 and Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610 in staunchly defending the importance of privilege for uninhibited communication between lawyer and client. Equally, however, he noted that given (para [71])

the significance of the rule, and its potentially controversial nature, as a virtually absolute exception to the general rule as to the availability and disclosability of relevant evidence... exemplified by the amount of litigation over the past decades in which issues arising from it have been debated before the courts, up to the highest level... it is particularly important that the rule should be certain, so that its application can be readily understood.

Thus while Lloyd LJ accepted that the question of function is relevant to the legal test of privilege (as a lawyer must be consulted in his or her professional capacity), the proper position is that the question of status is also central to the test, providing as it does a clear delineation of when privilege will apply. Any variation of that delineation must be undertaken by Parliament.

Accountants advising on legal matters do not enjoy privilege under New Zealand law. Under s 54 of the Evidence Act 2006, privilege will apply only to communications with "legal advisers". That term is defined in s 51 to include a "lawyer", "registered patent attorney" and "overseas practitioner". "Lawyer" is further defined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 as someone holding a current practicing certificate.

Interestingly, the New Zealand legal community has undertaken a similarly explicit consideration and rejection of extending privilege to tax advisers. The Law Commission's 1994 discussion paper Evidence Law: Privilege proposed a "radical revision" of LPP, that would have determined the status of legal adviser by function rather than status, extending privilege to, inter alia, legal tax advice. The 1999 Law Commission's Report 55 Evidence – Volume 1: Reform of the Law, however, reconsidered the proposals, returning to the more orthodox position now enunciated in the Evidence Act 2006. This history indicates a similar attempt to judicially extend privilege in New Zealand would be similarly unlikely to succeed.

The information in this article is for informative purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. Please contact Chapman Tripp for advice tailored to your situation.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions