The High Court ruled that two of 13 documents considered in a legal professional privilege dispute were protected, and directed that the remaining 11 be produced.
The application concerned documents relating to proceedings over a property. They included solicitor attendance notes, correspondence between the plaintiff and his solicitor, and a note of fees. The judgment does not identify the property or describe the underlying dispute.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said the plaintiff, who asserted privilege, bore the burden of proof. The court considered whether the communications were between client and lawyer, made in confidence, made during a professional legal relationship, and made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.
The judge found that two documents met the requirements. One was a solicitor’s telephone attendance note dated 1 March 2006. The other was a memorandum dated 13 April 2006 concerning a telephone conversation between Elaine O’Driscoll and the plaintiff’s solicitor, which led into a call between the plaintiff and his solicitor in which legal issues were discussed.
The court held that the other 11 documents did not satisfy the criteria for privilege. It directed production of documents 1–5 and 7–12 inclusive. It specifically excluded document 6, the 1 March 2006 attendance note, and document 13.
There is an inconsistency in the judgment’s description of document 13: it first identifies it as a memorandum dated 13 April 2006, but the production direction describes the excluded document 13 as an attendance note dated 6 June 2006. The judgment does not explain the discrepancy.