Hong Kong: Accountants, Tax Advice And Legal Advice Privilege

Last Updated: 24 May 2011
Article by Warren Ganesh

In Prudential Plc & Anor v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor [2010] STC 2802 (the Prudential case), the English Court of Appeal decided that the protection afforded by legal advice privilege did not extend to confidential documents passing between an accountant and a client for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice on tax matters. The Prudential case is being appealed to the UK Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's judgment will be important and should be of interest to accountants and their tax clients in many jurisdictions, including Hong Kong. The Prudential case assumes even greater importance in the current environment where tax authorities and regulators in various countries increase their scrutiny of some overseas nationals and their financial advisers with respect to allegations of tax evasion. In this article we take a look at some of the issues raised in the Prudential case and their potential relevance in Hong Kong.


Legal advice privilege is a fundamental right. Confidential communications between a qualified lawyer and client for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice do not have to be shown to a third party. A qualified lawyer is generally taken to be a solicitor or barrister. The privilege is that of the client; not the lawyer. The privilege is all but absolute, although it cannot be used in furtherance of a crime. The underlying rationale for legal advice privilege is that clients should be completely free to discuss problems requiring legal advice with their lawyer in order to receive the best advice possible and without fear that anyone else will know unless the client agrees.

In short, the ingredients of legal advice privilege are: a confidential communication, passing between a qualified lawyer and client, for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. In practice this is a workable concept and gives rise to few major disputes. However, sometimes an important case concerning legal advice privilege does arise. Three Rivers District Council v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No.6) [2004] UKHL 48 is one such case that helped clarify the meaning of "legal advice (albeit issues as to which individuals in a corporate entity constitute the "client" needlessly became rather confused).

The Prudential case is another important case. The judgment of the Supreme Court should clarify whether legal advice privilege is restricted to qualified lawyers or whether confidential legal advice given by accountants with respect to tax matters is also covered by the privilege. If the Supreme Court decides that legal advice privilege applies to accountants in such circumstances this could have far reaching consequences.

The facts

The claimant companies (the claimants) were served with information notices (the notices) by the tax authority in the UK which sought documents in the claimants' possession regarding what apparently was a tax avoidance scheme. In resisting the notices the claimants argued they were not required to produce confidential documents that contained legal advice on tax matters from either their lawyers or their accountants. It was not disputed that confidential documents by which the claimants had sought or received legal advice from their lawyers were privileged.

At first instance the claimants' objection to the notices failed. Based on legal authority (Wilden Pump & Engineering Co v Fusfield [1985] FSR 159) the judge held that legal advice privilege did not extend to confidential documents by which legal advice relating to tax issues was sought or obtained from an accountant. The claimants then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was of sufficient importance for the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to be allowed to intervene in the appeal.

The claimants' argument – "substance over form"

The claimants' main argument was essentially that, when deciding whether a confidential communication was privileged, the court had to consider the substance of the communication rather than the status of the adviser. Therefore, so the argument went, extending legal advice privilege to legal advice given by accountants with respect to tax matters made sense because such advice concerned the relevant law and accountants (rather than lawyers) were often asked to provide such advice.

The decision

The English Court of Appeal (the Court) unanimously and decisively dismissed the claimants' appeal. In essence, the Court's decision was based on two points.

First, based on the Wilden Pump case, legal advice privilege could not be extended to confidential communications to or from an accountant for the purpose of receiving or giving legal advice with respect to tax matters. Whilst the substance of the communication was important, the status of the adviser was (quoting from the leading judgment) "also central to the test" of legal advice privilege.

Second, even if the claimants could circumvent the first point, it was still not open to the Court to extend legal advice privilege as the claimants argued. If the privilege was to be extended, the Court considered that this was a matter for legislation because privilege should be clear and certain in its application (particularly, given that it allowed a party to withhold relevant evidence from a court and was an all but absolute protection). In the Court's opinion the privilege in confidential communications between clients and their lawyers was sufficiently clear and certain. However, the Court was concerned that this clarity and certainty would be undermined if the privilege was extended to other professions who gave legal advice in a professional capacity.

On 13 April 2011 the claimants were granted permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. We understand that the appeal is likely to be heard in October 2011.


At first blush the claimants' arguments appear quite clever, concentrating on the substance of the advice as opposed to the status of the professional adviser. In matters of legal argument "substance" often trumps "form". The claimants' arguments might even appear rather bold.

However, as the Court noted, if legal advice privilege is extended this would undermine the very parameters of such privilege, leading to less certainty. For example, should legal advice given by accountants on pensions or company law come within the scope of legal advice privilege and where is the line to be drawn?

The Court also noted another major difficulty with the claimants' arguments. In the UK there is no recognised profession of accountant as such; rather, accountants can belong to several professional bodies. However, there is no restriction on a person calling him or herself an "accountant". In Hong Kong the Professional Accountants Ordinance (Cap.50) governs "certified public accountants", but does not stop someone using the title "accountant"; for example, an accountant qualified in another jurisdiction but based in Hong Kong. The Court was not attracted to the argument put forward on behalf of the claimants that legal advice privilege with respect to tax matters could be restricted to accountant members of a recognised professional body.

Another major problem with the claimants' arguments is that there does not appear to be any example in which the privilege has been extended to a professional adviser other than a qualified lawyer except by statute. For example, pursuant to English legislation, legal advice privilege has been extended in certain circumstances to patent agents, trade mark agents and licensed conveyancers. The Court noted:

"Thus, not only has Parliament not created any statutory extension of legal professional privilege to legal advice sought from and given by accountants on tax matters ... Parliament's failure to change the law in this respect is not an accident."

Referring to the position in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the Court observed:

"We were not shown any example of legal professional privilege applying in relation to accountants except as a result of legislation ... it is noteworthy that no example of the application of legal professional privilege in relation to any professional adviser other than lawyers has been found except as a result of statutory intervention."

It is difficult to argue with these observations. The Court was clearly uncomfortable with the idea that legal advice privilege should be extended to accountants as a matter of judge made law, not knowing exactly what the parameters of such an extension might be. In our view, this is a compelling argument when viewed against the need for legal advice privilege to be more (not less) certain in its application. Indeed, bearing this fundamental point in mind, it might be considered something of a surprise that the claimants obtained permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, in our opinion the appeal is not without difficulty.

Furthermore, the Court's decision that any extension of legal advice privilege to other professional advisers should be a matter for the legislature (not judges) has much force. In Hong Kong the traditional view has been that legal advice privilege is restricted to confidential communications between qualified lawyers (barristers and solicitors) and their clients for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice and does not extend to other professional advisers. Interestingly, section 51 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap.112) provides for what information can be required by a tax inspector. That section refers to the protection of "privileged information or communication" but only in the context of a "counsel or solicitor".

Conclusion – to boldly go forth (or not)

We consider that the claimants' appeal is unlikely to succeed. It is true that sometimes it takes the highest appellate court to be bold. For example, in its decision in Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 the Supreme Court saw fit to abolish an expert witness's limited immunity with respect to claims for negligence (see our e-bulletin of 11 April 2011); an immunity that apparently had survived for many years. However, in a forceful dissent, one of the judges suggested that the removal of an expert witness's immunity from suit was more properly a matter for legislation. In our view, similar reasoning may prove decisive to the outcome of the Prudential case before the Supreme Court.

If we are right the same reasoning and policy considerations should apply if the issue comes before the Hong Kong courts for determination; particularly given that to date the Hong Kong courts have taken a very traditional approach to the application of legal advice privilege in Hong Kong. Should the Supreme Court allow the appeal in the Prudential case (and "boldly go where no court has gone before") the issue will come before the Hong Kong courts sooner or later.

A successful appeal in the Prudential case might be welcomed by tax accountants and their clients; it might also cause an element of head-scratching within the legal fraternity of Hong Kong (not to mention among some regulators).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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