*/
Material generated during internal investigations can be handed over to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a judge ordered in a test case on litigation privilege in criminal cases.
The SFO had been investigating British mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), since 2013 over its activities in Kazakhstan and Africa. The company, which denies any wrongdoing, resisted the SFO’s application for disclosure of documents created during an internal investigation prior to the SFO’s involvment claiming they were covered by legal professional privilege.
In SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that most of the documents could be disclosed because they had been produced at a time before litigation had been commenced or anticipated.
Litigation privilege, she said, only extended to documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not for the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation or in order to avoid litigation.
She accepted that ENRC believed that an investigation was imminent, but said that such an investigation was not ‘adversarial litigation’.
‘The policy that justifies litigation privilege does not extend to enabling a party to protect itself from having to disclose documents to an investigator.
‘Documents that are generated at a time when there is no more than a general apprehension of future litigation cannot be protected by litigation privilege just because an investigation is, or is believed to be imminent,’ she said.
Material generated during internal investigations can be handed over to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a judge ordered in a test case on litigation privilege in criminal cases.
The SFO had been investigating British mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), since 2013 over its activities in Kazakhstan and Africa. The company, which denies any wrongdoing, resisted the SFO’s application for disclosure of documents created during an internal investigation prior to the SFO’s involvment claiming they were covered by legal professional privilege.
In SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB), Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that most of the documents could be disclosed because they had been produced at a time before litigation had been commenced or anticipated.
Litigation privilege, she said, only extended to documents prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and not for the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation or in order to avoid litigation.
She accepted that ENRC believed that an investigation was imminent, but said that such an investigation was not ‘adversarial litigation’.
‘The policy that justifies litigation privilege does not extend to enabling a party to protect itself from having to disclose documents to an investigator.
‘Documents that are generated at a time when there is no more than a general apprehension of future litigation cannot be protected by litigation privilege just because an investigation is, or is believed to be imminent,’ she said.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge