The English High Court rules that notes of witness interviews prepared by in-house and external counsel in the course of an internal investigation were not covered by legal advice privilege or lawyers’ working papers privilege (RBS Rights Issue Litigation)

In December 2016, the English High Court ruled that transcripts, notes and other records of witness interviews prepared by in-house and external counsel in the course of an internal investigation were not covered by either legal advice privilege (“LAP”) or lawyers’ working papers privilege. The Court’s ruling has significant implications for the way in which companies and their legal advisers conduct internal investigations before litigation is commenced or reasonably in contemplation. Background The decision [1] arose in connection with The RBS Rights Issue Litigation which was brought by various shareholders of the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”) against RBS in respect of a 2008 rights issue of RBS shares (“Rights Issue”). The claimants allege that the information provided by RBS in the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Shearman & Sterling (London)
  • Shearman & Sterling (London)
  • Shearman & Sterling (London)

Quotation

Jo Rickard, Simon Cohen, Susanna Charlwood, The English High Court rules that notes of witness interviews prepared by in-house and external counsel in the course of an internal investigation were not covered by legal advice privilege or lawyers’ working papers privilege (RBS Rights Issue Litigation), 8 December 2016, e-Competitions Bulletin Legal privilege, Art. N° 82699

Visites 149

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues