UK: Privilege And Investigations: Court Of Appeal Restores Ambit Of Litigation Privilege

Last Updated: 23 September 2018
Article by Tony Woodcock and Alan Ward

The facts

In December 2010 ENRC received an email from an apparent whistle-blower alleging corruption and financial wrongdoing at ENRC's Kazakh subsidiary. ENRC instructed solicitors in London to investigate the allegations contained in the email.

Allegations of corruption involving ENRC reached the public domain. In April 2011, an MP wrote to the SFO asking it to investigate ENRC's business in Africa. In August 2011, The Times reported on the allegations relating to Kazakhstan. Emails from March and April 2011 showed that ENRC's General Counsel and Head of Compliance were concerned about the prospect of an imminent "dawn raid" by the SFO.

By the summer of 2011, ENRC's investigation, conducted by its London solicitors, had expanded to cover allegations of corruption in both Kazakhstan and Africa. Forensic accountants had been instructed to conduct a "books and records review". ENRC's solicitors also began conducting interviews with current and former employees.

On 10 August 2011, the SFO wrote to ENRC regarding "recent intelligence and media reports concerning allegations of corruption and wrongdoing [by ENRC]". The SFO's letter invited ENRC to a meeting to discuss the allegations and urged ENRC to consider its July 2009 Self-Reporting Guidelines. The letter concluded by saying that the SFO was not conducting a criminal investigation into ENRC at that stage.

Through the remainder of 2011, and the entirety of 2012, ENRC's investigation continued. ENRC's solicitors were in regular dialogue with the SFO about progress and met with the SFO to provide periodic updates. ENRC's solicitors also provided updates on the investigation to the Board of ENRC.

In March 2013, no formal report from ENRC having been provided, the SFO served a compulsory notice on ENRC's solicitor (who had conducted the internal investigation) purporting to require the disclosure of documents relevant to its determination of whether a criminal investigation should be opened into ENRC. In April 2013, the SFO opened a criminal investigation into ENRC.

ENRC asserted legal professional privilege over the documents arising out of its internal investigation. Ultimately, in February 2016 the SFO issued a Part 8 Claim against ENRC for a declaration that no privilege attached to four specific categories of documents:

  1. Notes taken by ENRC's solicitors of interviews with current and former employees of ENRC, created between August 2011 and March 2013 ("the interview notes");
  2. Material generated by the forensic accountants that were instructed to undertake the "books and records review", created between May 2011 and January 2013 ("the books and records work product");
  3. PowerPoint Slides used by ENRC's solicitors to provide briefings on the investigation and legal advice to the Board and Corporate Governance Committee of ENRC ("the PowerPoint slides"); and
  4. Nine reports generated by the forensic accountants and six emails / letters enclosing copies of those reports ("the forensic accountant's reports").

    Category 4 also included two emails dating from October 2010 sent to and from ENRC's Head of Mergers and Acquisitions, which ENRC asserted were drafted for the purpose of seeking legal advice on behalf of ENRC ("the October 2010 emails").

The judgment at first instance

In her judgment in May 2017, Mrs Justice Andrews granted the declaration sought by the SFO in respect of Categories 1, 2 and 4. Mrs Justice Andrews held that no claim to legal professional privilege (either advice or litigation privilege) could be maintained in respect of these categories of documents on the basis that:

1 No claim to litigation privilege could be made out:

1.1 At no stage before the documents were created was litigation – i.e. criminal legal proceedings – reasonably in contemplation;

1.1.1 In August 2011 (or before) ENRC may have reasonably contemplated a criminal investigation. However, for the purposes of litigation privilege, reasonable contemplation of a criminal investigation (which does not amount to adversarial litigation) is not the same as reasonable contemplation of criminal prosecution;

1.1.2 There is a "critical" difference between civil and criminal proceedings, in that there is "no inhibition of commencement of civil proceedings where there is no foundation for them." In contrast, criminal proceedings cannot be commenced unless a prosecutor is satisfied that there is a sufficient evidential basis for prosecution and that the public interest test is met;

1.2 In any event, even if litigation had been in reasonable contemplation, the documents were not created for the dominant purpose of use in litigation, and thus not subject to litigation privilege;

1.2.1 The solicitors who generated the Category 1 documents were instructed as "information gatherers rather than as legal advisers";

1.2.2 Taking legal advice in relation to the conduct of future contemplated criminal litigation was not "even a subsidiary purpose of the creation of those documents, let alone the dominant purpose";

1.2.3 The dominant purpose of the books and records review was "plainly to meet compliance requirements or to obtain accountancy advice on remedial steps";

1.2.4 In November 2011, ENRC's general counsel wrote to the SFO indicating that the product of the internal investigation would be shared with the SFO; documents created "with the specific purpose or intention of showing them to the potential adversary in litigation" are not subject to litigation privilege.

2 Mrs Justice Andrews also rejected ENRC's claim to advice privilege over the Category 1 documents and the October 2011 emails:

2.1 Following Three Rivers District Council and Others v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 5) [2003] QB 1556 ("Three Rivers (No. 5)") only communications between a lawyer and client can be subject to legal advice privilege. Those interviewed by ENRC's solicitors were not authorised to seek and receive legal advice on behalf of ENRC. Therefore communications with those individuals, as evidenced in the Category 1 Documents (the interview notes), were not privileged;

2.2 The Category 1 documents could not be lawyers' working papers as they merely recorded what the lawyers were told by those who were interviewed, and did not "betray the trend of the legal advice";

2.3 The October 2011 emails were not subject to advice privilege as the Head of Mergers and Acquisitions, although qualified as a lawyer, was acting as ENRC's "man of business". Legal advice should have been sought from ENRC's General Counsel.

3 The Category 3 documents – PowerPoint presentations by ENRC's solicitors to the Board – were held by Mrs Justice Andrews to be subject to legal advice privilege:

3.1 The evidence showed that the slides were prepared for the purpose of giving legal advice to the Board – as opposed to merely reporting factual findings – and were thus "plainly privileged";

3.2 Even though the slides made reference to factual information, and findings from the African investigation, that would not otherwise be privileged, they are part and parcel of the confidential solicitor-client communication and also fall within the ambit of the protection of solicitors' work product;

3.3 Additionally, any record of what the solicitors said at the Board meetings (whether made by a lawyer or not) would also be subject to advice privilege, even if reference was made to information which would not otherwise be privileged.

The Court of Appeal judgment

The Court of Appeal found that the Documents in Categories 1, 2 and 4 (save for the October 2011 emails) were covered by litigation privilege.

Both of Mrs Justice Andrew's findings on litigation privilege were rejected by the Court of Appeal:

Litigation "reasonably in contemplation"

Contrary to Mrs Justice Andrews, the Court of Appeal found that ENRC was "in reasonable contemplation [of litigation] when it commenced its investigation in April 2011, and certainly by the time it received the SFO's August 2011 letter."

The Court of Appeal found that "the entire subtext of the relationship between ENRC and the SFO was the possibility, if not the likelihood, of prosecution". The Court also appeared to place weight on evidence that ENRC received advice from its solicitors in April 2011 to the effect that "both criminal and civil proceedings can be reasonably said to be in contemplation".

Notably, the Court of Appeal recognised that an international corporation will often be uncertain as to the nature and extent of any potential criminal liability, and require an investigation to take place before it can say with certainty that proceedings are likely. The Court of Appeal went on to observe that uncertainty does not prevent proceedings being "in reasonable contemplation".

Mrs Justice Andrews' distinction between litigation privilege in civil and criminal contexts was also rejected as "illusory". The Court of Appeal held that "it would be wrong for it to be thought that, in a criminal context, a potential defendant is likely to be denied the benefit of litigation privilege when he asks his solicitor to investigate the circumstances of any alleged offence."

The "dominant purpose" of the internal investigation

The Court of Appeal held that documents created to avoid as well as resist proceedings were protected by litigation privilege, and that this was the dominant purpose behind the creation of the Category 1, 2 and 4 documents (save for the October 2011 emails).

Although ENRC initially instructed its solicitors to investigate the whistle-blower allegations, and subsequently the Africa allegations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the investigation "must be brought into the zone where the dominant purpose may be to prevent or deal with litigation". Following the earlier Court of Appeal judgment in Re Highgrade Traders [1984] BCLC 151 the need to "investigate the existence of corruption in this case was just a subset of the defence of contemplated legal proceedings."

Mrs Justice Andrews' finding that the forensic account's work product and reports in Categories 2 and 4 were created for "compliance or remediation" purposes, and therefore not for the dominant purpose of litigation, was rejected by the Court of Appeal, observing that "although a reputable company will wish to ensure high ethical standards in the conduct of its business for its own sake, it is undeniable that the 'stick' used to enforce appropriate standards is the criminal law and, in some measure, the civil law also". The Court of Appeal also noted that the compliance and remediation work "might itself have been intended to avoid or deal with litigation".

Finally, Mrs Justice Andrews' finding that ENRC brought the documents into existence for the specific purpose of being shown to the SFO was also rejected. The Court of Appeal held that the fact a document is created with the specific purpose of being shown to the other side in litigation (for example, a response to a claim) does not mean that the advice received in respect of the creation of that document is not privileged: "The discussions surrounding the drafting of such a letter would be as much covered by litigation privilege as any other work done in preparing to defend the claim."

Conclusions and Practical Lessons for Internal Investigations

The Court of Appeal's judgment will be well received by in-house counsel and their outside legal advisors alike, affording significantly more comfort than the earlier High Court ruling as to the potential availability of the protection of litigation privilege in the context of an internal investigation.

However, it must be borne in mind that the facts of the ENRC case are exceptional. At the time the whistle-blower allegations came to light ENRC was a FTSE 100 company. Allegations of corruption were widely aired in the press and were the subject of a letter from a Member of Parliament to the SFO. For a year and a half ENRC was in dialogue with the SFO about self-reporting. On these singular facts it is perhaps unsurprising that ENRC had reason to contemplate legal proceedings from a relatively early stage in their investigation.

Most cases, where an allegation of potentially criminality comes to light, bear little or no resemblance to the situation in ENRC. Despite the comfort the judgment in ENRC offers, therefore, the question of when criminal litigation is in "reasonable contemplation", so as to trigger the protection of litigation privilege in any internal investigation, will, in the vast majority of cases, continue to require considerable careful thought.

That the Court of Appeal considered itself unable to depart from Three Rivers (No. 5) is unsurprising. More noteworthy was the Court's indication that it would have made a contrary finding on the ambit of advice privilege if it had been able to do so. So long as Three Rivers (No. 5), as understood and applied by the Court of Appeal in ENRC, remains authoritative, companies must take great care in delineating the group of individuals who will act as the "client" for the purpose of giving instructions and receiving legal advice, at the outset of any investigation. Only communications between that group and legal advisors will attract the protection of advice privilege. Factual summaries of any investigation can be protected by advice privilege (as the PowerPoint slides were found to be in ENRC) so long as they form part of the continuum of legal advice which is being provided. Similarly early and careful thought must be given to the "dominant purpose" of any investigative work, and any analysis should be documented, with a view to having to defend any assertion as to litigation privilege at a later date.

The SFO has not indicated its intentions as regards any application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The public interest may be well served by the question of the proper ambit of legal advice privilege, in a corporate context, being determined conclusively.

However, given that the Court of Appeal did not interfere with the limited scope of advice privilege in the corporate context, which is favourable to public investigators and prosecutors (interview notes, which the SFO is often most eager to obtain, cannot as it stands be protected by legal advice privilege), and given that it is possible to confine the judgment in ENRC to its own, singular facts on litigation privilege, the SFO may be slow to initiate an appeal, lest it end up with what it might consider to be an even less palatable result.

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
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 (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