Ashley Greenbank states in his review [‘The Prudential case: a fair trial for privilege?’ Tax Journal 25 October]:
‘In the High Court Charles J acknowledged the force of some of Prudential's arguments whilst finding that he was bound by precedent to reach the conclusion that he did. The Court of Appeal offered no such crumbs of comfort.’ I cannot see how Ashley can reach the conclusion that the Court of Appeal completely disagreed with ‘the force of Prudential’s arguments’. In fact at paragraph 86 of the Court of Appeal judgment there is a clear statement from Lord Justice Lloyd who gave the only judgment that ‘I agree with almost everything in the judgment of Charles J’. The only matter on which he disagreed was with the suggestion from Charles J that the scope of...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > Feedback on legal professional privilege
Feedback on legal professional privilege
Feedback on legal professional privilege
Dear Sir
Ashley Greenbank states in his review [‘The Prudential case: a fair trial for privilege?’ Tax Journal 25 October]:
‘In the High Court Charles J acknowledged the force of some of Prudential's arguments whilst finding that he was bound by precedent to reach the conclusion that he did. The Court of Appeal offered no such crumbs of comfort.’ I cannot see how Ashley can reach the conclusion that the Court of Appeal completely disagreed with ‘the force of Prudential’s arguments’. In fact at paragraph 86 of the Court of Appeal judgment there is a clear statement from Lord Justice Lloyd who gave the only judgment that ‘I agree with almost everything in the judgment of Charles J’. The only matter on which he disagreed was with the suggestion from Charles J that the scope of...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
