ARTICLE
15 August 2019

Legal Professional Privilege: Just An Immunity

DP
DLA Piper UK LLP

Contributor

DLA Piper is dedicated to helping forward-thinking businesses address today’s challenges and shape a better world. With a bold and dynamic culture, it emphasizes excellence in client relationships, community service, and people development. The firm fosters creativity, strategic thinking, inclusivity, and collaboration to exceed expectations. Recognizing the importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, the firm actively supports clients in transitioning to sustainable futures. It promotes purpose, transparency, and sustainability within its own governance and operations, ensuring its people are equipped to deliver exceptional results for clients while making a positive societal impact.

The High Court of Australia today handed down an important, unanimous judgment on legal professional privilege.
Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The High Court of Australia today handed down an important, unanimous judgment on legal professional privilege. The Court confirmed that while legal professional privilege can immunise parties from having to produce privileged communications outside the lawyer-client relationship, it is not a legal right on which a cause of action can be based.

The case of Glencore International AG v. Commissioner of Taxation concerned an application by Glencore to injunct the ATO from using certain ‘Paradise Papers’ that were leaked to the international press in 2017. Those papers recorded legal advice Glencore received on a large restructure it undertook in 2014. Glencore sought to prevent the ATO from using the papers on the basis that they were legally privileged and that legal professional privilege founded a basis for an injunction. The ATO denied that legal professional privilege was a proper basis for an injunction, and asserted that it had statutory powers to use the documents as they were already in its possession.

The High Court agreed with the ATO that legal professional privilege was an immunity, but not a legal right that could found the basis for an injunction. A claim based on an apprehended breach of confidence could operate to support an injunction, but breach of confidence was not argued by Glencore here because the papers were already in the public domain. There was no allegation that the ATO had itself engaged in breach of confidence in accessing the papers.

As a result of this decision, the ATO will now be free to use the leaked Paradise Papers (which were stolen from Glencore’s advisers) to investigate whether or not Glencore has breached its tax obligations.

The immediate lesson from the case is that once privileged documents have been disclosed by way of hacking or theft (or other similar means), affected parties will need to rely on arguments based on breach of confidence (if available), not legal professional privilege, in order to try to restrict the use of those documents.

A link to the full decision can be found here.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More