Gowing & Co Lawyers Ltd v Police [2013] NZHC 2177 Gowing concerned a letter written by the defendant in criminal proceedings for service on the complainant containing certain self-incriminating statements. The letter was delivered by the respondent to another person who refused to forward it to the complainant at the complainant`s request. The letter was returned to the defendant, who then made it available to his legal counsel at a meeting. The respondent argued that the letter attracted solicitor-client privilege because it was granted to the defendant`s legal counsel at a “privileged meeting”. The Court noted that the letter had not attracted privilege for the following reasons: In considering the application, the Court relied on the Third Circuit test for the general application of the doctrine of the common interest. The court did not consider the various authorities involved as a single government entity free to share privileged documents with each other. If the protection of EU professional secrecy is challenged during a search carried out by European Commission inspectors, the following procedure must be followed: However, since professional secrecy covers communication between a company under investigation and the external lawyer, it can be concluded that correspondence with a lawyer is protected only in the context of an investigation and not in the context of other types of proceedings. of the Competition Council, such as merger control procedures. In December 2010, the Supreme Court found that information about money transfers in the course of the lawyer`s legal practice, as well as the identity of the client in a specific legal advice direction, constitutes privileged information (see footnote 2). This view was confirmed by a Supreme Court decision in 2011. In 2012, the Supreme Court found that even if a lawyer is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, information about client names and transfers of funds between lawyer and client is subject to solicitor-client privilege and replaces any disclosure requirement, unless a clear legal provision provides otherwise (see footnote 3).
The Supreme Court has held that, without prejudice to the duty of secrecy, the lawyer may recover unpaid fees, even if such an act results in the disclosure of the client relationship (see footnote 4). “(b) a person authorized by the holder of the privilege to exercise the privilege; or, in addition, lawyers may not invoke solicitor-client privilege to refuse to provide information to administrative or judicial authorities investigating anti-money laundering cases. (§ 1016.) Dnl 13 The Law Review Board`s commentary on the amendment of section 1017 of 1967 states: “It is important to recognize that solicitor-client privilege may provide protection in certain cases where there is an exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. See article 952 and its commentary. See also Articles 912(d) and 954 and their commentaries. Whether a privilege can be invoked for testimony served on the other party is a matter before the Irish High Court in Defender Ltd v. HSBC. With respect to the subject`s testimony, the question arose as to whether privilege is lost if a witness statement is given to the other party but is not accepted in open session. The High Court noted that there are political reasons to maintain the privileged status of testimony, and stressed in particular the importance of open and honest testimony to promote agreement between the parties, and the benefits of maintaining privilege over testimony until “the last minute”. The High Court ruled that testimony does not lose its privileged document status once it is served and that privilege is maintained until the testimony is “accepted by the witness or otherwise made public.” With regard to recent legal developments, it is important to point out that the Private Damages Directive was amended by Law No. 23/2018, of 5.
June. Where, on the one hand, the Directive provides for a particular need for consistency as regards the arrangements for access to documents held by national competition authorities, on the other hand, it provides for a restriction on the disclosure of evidence covered by professional secrecy. This is also provided for in Law No. 23/2018. This decision illustrates the many factors that courts consider when deciding whether communication with an external consultant or other type of contractor can be protected by solicitor-client privilege under the doctrine of “functional equivalence.” .