Latest Keoghs Insight

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Fourteenth Edition of the Judicial College’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Client Alerts||15/09/2017

Personal Injury Discount Rate

Client Alerts||08/09/2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 to come into force in October 2017

Client Alerts||23/08/2017

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Minibus claims worth over £100,000 stopped dead in their tracks as Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance prove fundamental dishonesty

News And Events||20/11/2017

Keoghs IT team celebrate double award win

News And Events||17/11/2017

Keoghs unveils first true AI insurance lawyer

News And Events||07/11/2017

Expansion continues for Keoghs with launch of Marine, Ports and Offshore team

News And Events||03/11/2017

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

News And Events||20/10/2017

Keoghs IT team recognised in prestigious awards

News And Events||19/10/2017

Disputed causation leaves claimants paying the price

News And Events||17/10/2017

Keoghs announce 20 promotions and four new appointments

News And Events||31/08/2017

The Meaning of “Accidental Damage”


Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?


The Discount Rate - Time to Draw the Line?


Out of your Control: The expanding limits of vicarious liability - Natasha Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council


Keoghs Launches Online Ogden Multiplier Calculator


A new way of life? Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)


Driver disqualification and the case for exceptional hardship


Health and Safety Executive FFI invoices – new panel, same challenges


Credit Hire Aware 12


Costs Aware Issue 3


Property Aware 5


Credit Hire Aware 11


Fraud Aware 5


Costs Aware 2


Disease Aware 8


Credit Hire Aware 10


Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.


Neena Sharma

Neena Sharma


T: 01204 677135

Client Alert: Potential changes to document privilege - SFO v ENRC judgment

Client Alerts||15/05/2017

In this important High Court decision,  Mrs Justice Andrews has altered the potential scope of litigation privilege. The case was brought by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) against Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. (ENRC), with the SFO seeking a declaration to compel production of documents requested from ENRC under s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. The decision has prospective consequences for those facing criminal or regulatory investigation and their advisors.

The SFO's request was resisted by ENRC on the grounds that legal professional privilege (LPP) was attached to the documents in question, as they were the work product of their internal investigation (commenced in 2011) following whistleblower allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption in its mining operations in both Kazakhstan and Africa. ENRC's lawyers, instructed at the time, liaised regularly with the SFO on the progress of the investigation up until their dismissal, after which the SFO took the decision to commence its own criminal investigation in 2013.  

Legal Advice Privilege and Litigation Privilege

The relevant distinction between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege is:

Documents in Question

It is important to understand the nature of the documents/communications at the centre of this case. There were four categories of documents which the High Court was asked to rule upon:

Category one consisted of notes taken by ENRC’s previous lawyers of the evidence given to them by individuals (including employees and former employees or officers of ENRC, their suppliers, and other third parties with whom they had dealings with) when asked about the events being investigated. ENRC claimed that these documents were subject to litigation privilege or, in the alternative, to legal advice privilege.

Category two comprised of materials generated by ENRC’s forensic accountants as part of “books and records”. It was agreed that the claim would only concern itself with ENRC’s claim to litigation privilege for the purpose of the proceedings and ENRC would retain the right to claim legal advice privilege in respect of any individual document falling within this category.

Category three consisted of documents indicating or containing factual evidence presented by the Partner who had conduct of the investigations at all material times and, in turn, to ENRC’s Board and Corporate Governance Committee.

Category four documents comprised 17 documents referred to in a letter sent to the SFO by ENRC’s new legal advisors which independent counsel had determined did not attract LPP, and also email communications.

Implications of the judgment

The effect of the ruling by Mrs Justice Andrews has caused concern amongst the legal profession. The impact of the judgment is that litigation privilege did not apply to any of the documents prepared by an international corporation as part of its internal investigation into alleged misconduct.  

According to the court, privilege could only apply if ENRC anticipated actual criminal prosecution, but not for a document prepared for the purpose of avoiding litigation.

A document which is prepared, for example, to comply with self-reporting (as in this case) could not be subject to litigation privilege.

Mrs Justice Andrews added that LPP protects documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not documents produced to enable advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation. Litigation privilege will only apply when litigation is reasonably in contemplation or prospect. The ruling stated that, although the company anticipated a raid by the SFO and a formal criminal investigation, such a belief did not constitute contemplation of adversarial litigation. Litigation for these purposes is defined as a prosecution.


Not surprisingly ENRC are mounting an appeal, but in the interim companies can no longer afford to assume that interview records with its officers and employees can lawfully be withheld from prosecuting agencies.

Careful consideration will need to be taken as to how fact finding investigations are conducted so that appropriate legal advice can be provided to clients. Company solicitors’ notes from employees or other officers of the company in the course of the internal investigation will not attract litigation privilege or legal advice privilege as the employees or other officers are not their clients.

Solicitors need to carefully consider who their client is and the nature of communications which are capable of attracting legal advice privilege.  The concept of the ‘client’ in the context of corporations has been the subject of appellate consideration by the Court of Appeal in Three Rivers 5. The issue is not without controversy, but it appears from Three Rivers 5 that the ‘client’ will not necessarily be the corporation itself, or its employees per se, but only those within the corporation who are authorised to communicate with and receive the lawyer’s advice.

One possible way to preserve privilege when conducting interviews with employees who are potential witnesses, would be for the employee to receive express authorisation from the company to communicate with the lawyers for the purposes of receiving advice. The position in relation to interviews with third parties is less clear, but an interview with a genuine third party is unlikely to attract legal advice privilege.

The interplay between documents and advice provided within a criminal sphere and the implications with civil claims will also require detailed scrutiny and careful consideration. Insurers need to be alive to requests by regulators and/or for their claims investigators’ reports and other material they may have in their possession pursuant to DPA requests, for example.  

It remains to be seen how regulators other than the SFO will view this decision. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provides an exemption to companies producing privileged documentation if requested by a HSE Inspector pursuant to its S.20 powers (S.20 (8)) but the effect of this ruling may well result in further protracted litigation if regulators take the view that the documentation in question may improve their position if obtained.
However for the moment all eyes will be on any appeal arising from this ruling.

For more information please contact:

Neena Sharma
T: 01204 677135

Tom Stevenson
T: 02034 362342