Legal Advice Privilege and its Relevance to Corporations

This article considers whether the rationale for legal advice privilege applies to corporations. It examines the rationale for legal advice privilege in the aftermath of the disagreement between the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in the Three Rivers litigation, and argues that the rule of law rationale for advice privilege endorsed by the House of Lords is based largely on the needs and behavior of individuals. The paper examines the case for recognising advice privilege for corporations. Recent developments in corporate law and governance, especially in relation to directors' duties, have arguably reduced the need for a corporate privilege. Public and large private companies in particular already have sufficient incentives to obtain accurate legal advice about their affairs even without a privilege. There are also sound policy reasons for restricting the right of corporations to claim legal advice privilege given its costs to the administration of justice.     

(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd

Corporate groups, a ubiquitous feature of modern business, pose formidable challenges for common law courts relying on traditional corporate law doctrine. Arising out of a corporate group's recent bid to recover millions of dollars in lost profits from a former director and CEO who had diverted a core business, Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd raised thorny issues of separate legal entity doctrine, single economic unit theory, and reflective loss shared by common law legal systems. Despite finding that the defendant had breached his duties to the ultimate holding company, the Singapore Court of Appeal absolved the faithless director from most of his liabilities, relying on limited domestic precedent to the exclusion of a rich body of Commonwealth jurisprudence – including the House of Lords’ landmark Johnson v Gore Wood decision. This note explores the paths not taken by the court, and highlights the pitfalls of a narrow, autochthonous approach to problems of common law doctrine.     

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority

England's Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that parents had the right to prevent a physician at the local health authority from prescribing contraceptives to girls under the age of 16 without parental consent. Since a girl was legally incapable of giving valid consent in other matters before that age, neither could she give valid consent to contraception or abortion. A doctor who provided contraception or abortion treatment to a girl under 16, except in an emergency or with permission of the court, would infringe on the legal rights of the parents. An appeal was taken to the House of Lords.     

House of Lords simplifies the law on patent entitlement

The House of Lords has held that, to claim entitlement to another'spatent or patent application, a person need only prove thathe was the inventor of the subject-matter of the patent, anddoes not also need to invoke ‘some other rule of law’as required previously by the Court of Appeal in Markem v Zipher[2005] RPC 31.     

Miscarriages of Justice and the Discourse of Innocence: Perspectives from Appellants,Campaigners, Journalists,and Legal Practitioners

This article problematizes the discourse of innocence in relation to victims of wrongful conviction operating within the criminal justice system. For appellants whose convictions have been quashed by the Court of Appeal, notions of innocence are often at odds with how others perceive and understand the purpose of criminal trials and appeals. This article will examine the views of legal practitioners, journalists, and victims of wrongful conviction and their supporters regarding factual innocence and how misunderstanding can sometimes lead to miscommunication by actors operating within the same system. The article will further examine the issue of compensation in light of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court and conclude that the current debate regarding what constitutes a miscarriage of justice continues to confuse legal practitioners and prolong the anxiety suffered by victims recovering from the trauma of wrongful imprisonment and subsequent losses.     

Identifying Miscarriages of Justice: Why Innocence in the UK is Not the Answer

This article examines two contrasting proposals for the reform of criminal appeals: the government's recent proposal that the guilty should no longer have their convictions quashed on 'technicalities'; and calls by campaigners for the Court of Appeal to consider innocence rather than the 'safety of the conviction,' together with their associated attempts to establish Innocence Projects in the UK. Despite the rhetorical power of 'innocence' as a campaigning tool, it is contended that to import such a standard into the legal system would be retrogressive and counter-productive, both as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and in protecting the integrity of the system. In order to be meaningful, due process protections must apply to all. The government's proposals attack this principle directly; innocence campaigners risk unwittingly assisting their endeavours.     

20世纪50年代的无罪推定学术观点——关于杨兆龙无罪推定思想的研究

20世纪50年代仅有的几篇支持无罪推定的文章显示了诸多学术意义：极端意识形态对法律理性和法治进步的阻碍和迟滞影响未受到充分的理性批判，法学研究之法律逻辑学术基础薄弱，无罪推定的逻辑困惑仍未消除，杨兆龙先生关于无罪推定原则的研究所达到的深度尚未被超越，刑事诉讼法的修改是否能充分吸收无罪推定和沉默权原则，可能的保守倾向令人担忧。     

Wielding Occam's Razor: Pruning Strategies for Economic Loss

The English Court of Appeal is currently faced with three analyticallydistinct approaches to the question of when one party owes anothera duty of care in respect of her economic interests, all ofwhich bear the authority of the House of Lords. Unable to choosebetween them, it has recently adopted a fourth approach combiningwhich combines them, in the apparent belief that the combinationwill eradicate any individual deficiencies. Against the backgroundof a recent case, the author argues that this is a holding strategyat best and methodologically deficient. He also challenges thecontinuing lip-service paid by courts to models of liabilitybased upon ‘assumptions of responsibility,’ examiningand criticising the causes of their persistence in the law inthe face of widespread academic criticism. Instead, the authorargues, the House of Lords should now clearly endorse a singlereasoning strategy to economic loss cases based on the three-stageapproach in Caparo Industries v Dickman. Properly understood,this approach offers the best prospect of facilitating consistentand transparent decision-making in the longer term.     

Psychiatric injury and assault the immediate effect ofR. v.Ireland, R. v.Burstow

Conclusion R. v.Ireland marked the emergence of the psychic assault—an assault which does not involve fear of immediate force, where the harm becomes a feature of the assault. This explains why foresight ofsuch harm was required of the defendant by the Court of Appeal inIreland. However, the more recent discussions on assault, by the House of Lords inR. v.Burstow, R. v.Ireland and by the Court of Appeal inR. v.Constanza, have made no reference to the defendant's foresight or to the victim's psychiatric injury. Instead the decisions have focused on the victim's fear of immediate violence. To this extent they have halted the development of the psychiatric assault and preserved the traditional view of assault as the apprehension of immediate unlawful force.     

Consent to Treatment for Transgender Youth: The Next Chapter – Bell & Anor v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

In September 2021, the Court of Appeal reversed the controversial decision of Quincy Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust in a victory for transgender rights. At first instance, the Divisional Court had set a high legal threshold for transgender children to attain Gillick competence to consent to treatment with puberty blockers – effectively restricting access to treatment for many. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that children are capable in law of giving valid consent to treatment for gender dysphoria, and court authorisation would not be routinely required before children could access such treatment. This note considers the implications of the Court of Appeal decision for the law on minors and consent to medical treatment in the transgender health context.     

Compensation for Commercial Agents

This note examines the decision of the House of Lords in Lonsdale (t/a Lonsdale Agencies) v Howard & Hallam Limited ¹ where the House of Lords were asked to rule on the correct method to be applied when calculating the compensation of commercial agents ² under Regulation 17 of The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 ³ (the Regulations). This ruling settles this aspect of the law in England and Wales after almost fifteen years of legal and commercial uncertainty on the matter.     

Caring for the Disabled? New Boundaries in Disability Discrimination

The scope of the disability-related less favourable treatment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has been reduced by the House of Lords in a housing case, London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm , while the European Court of Justice has taken a broad approach to disability discrimination and carers within the EC Framework Directive in Coleman v Attridge Law . In discussing both cases, this note suggests that the pre- Malcolm approach to identifying the comparator in disability-related discrimination claims should prevail in the employment context, in view of the obligations under the EC Framework Directive.     

Discrimination Law and the Ebb and Flow of Indirect Effect in Britain

Strained judicial interpretation of British discrimination law is not new; some of the leading House of Lords cases on the European Union law doctrine of Indirect Effect have concerned discrimination law. The interpretative obligation, to read national law in line with EU law, has seen words read in and like being treated with like according to changing mores. However, the disability discrimination case of EBR Attridge Law v Coleman [2010] I.C.R. 242 saw an entire sub-section being read in by an Employment Appeal Tribunal. This article briefly reviews the House of Lords’ approach in earlier cases, primarily through the prism of discrimination law, and then asks, following more recent Employment Appeal Tribunal cases concerning pregnancy discrimination and the protection from victimisation within the Equality Act 2010, whether the high-water mark for judicial re-writing has been reached in Britain and whether compliance with European law can better be attained in other ways.     

The End of Innocence: Open Justice,Free Speech and Privacy in the Modern Constitution – Khuja (formerly PNM) v Times Newspapers Limited

This case note explores the issue of open justice considered by Khuja (formerly PNM) v Times Newspapers Limited in the Supreme Court and argues that the current law is confused and incoherent. Far from settling the debate, it is suggested that the decision further undermines some of the key assumptions underpinning the current approach, especially in the light of the compelling and humane minority judgment. This leaves the area ripe for reconsideration in general terms. This note challenges many of the formulaic slogans and rhetoric in previous case law as well as suggesting that the meaning of open justice has been lost in current discourse. After summarising the facts, this note sets out the majority and minority judgments, before analysing some of the conceptual difficulties raised – particularly those of open justice, privacy, presumption of innocence and freedom of speech.     

无罪推定原则的意义解读——一种诉讼法哲学分析

无罪推定已经成为现代国家的一项刑事诉讼法原则乃至宪法原则。无罪推定在各国立法例中虽然有肯定式和否定式两种表述方式 ,但其基本内涵却是相同的 ,即 :任何人在没有充分证据证明并由法院判决确定有罪之前 ,应作为无罪公民对待。作为一种关于正义的规范性命题 ,无罪推定原则具有内在的基本特征和诉讼程序规则 ,具有深厚的社会哲学基础和重要的政治法律意义。在建设社会主义法治国家进程中 ,无罪推定原则的进一步发展与完善 ,成为当代中国刑事诉讼法制现代化的迫切需要和时代课题。     

REVIEWS

Final Appeal —A Study of the House of Lords in its Judicial Capacity . By Louis Blom -Cooper and Gavin Drewry . Company Law and Capitalism . By Tom Hadden . Gore -Browne on Companies , 42nd edition. By A. J. Boyle The Protection of the Minority Shareholders in a Limited Company . By Hendrik Prins .     

The judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom: a public choice analysis

The Human Rights Act 1998 unprecedentedly enabled the senior courts in the United Kingdom to review parliamentary enactments for compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. This article seeks to analyze within the framework of public choice economics two phenomena arising from this development that are counterintuitive: What made Parliament voluntarily invite the judiciary to monitor its acts? Why has Parliament consistently complied with rulings of the Judicial House of Lords that challenged primary legislation over the last 10 years? It argues that the Act was designed in a way that fulfilled the electoral commitments of the enacting majority by supplying promised policies to its constituencies, while minimizing agency costs and information problems in favor of Parliament’s corporate interests. Significantly, the Act left intact the veto powers of Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. As such, it disincentivized the Judicial House of Lords to risk costly overturns of its rulings by Parliament for straying too far from the range of the ideal policy positions spanned by Parliament and Strasbourg. Drawing from the empirical evidence of the past decade, it will be shown that in nearly all cases the Law Lords have either upheld the compatibility of challenged statutes, reaffirmed parliamentary preferences, or followed the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.     

Guantánamo Bay: Towards Legality?

This article outlines the US Supreme Court's approach to the habeas corpus entitlements of suspected terrorists detained in Guantánamo Bay and argues for the extension of constitutional habeas corpus rights to them. The article considers two ways in which the Supreme Court might carry out this task: first, 'the territorial approach' (based on domestic legal principles of 'unincorporated territories' and principles of leasehold), and secondly, 'the extraterritorial approach' (based on international purposive approaches to the reach of human rights treaties exemplified by the European Court of Human Rights' Article 1 jurisprudence). For reasons of effectiveness of protection, the Article expresses a clear preference for the latter. The House of Lords decision in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence (2007) is proposed as a template for such a development. Finally the article refutes arguments rejecting such a development based on the 'trade-off thesis' and perceptions of judicial competence.     

English court upholds ban on newspaper publishing identity of HIV-positive health-care worker

In the last issue of the Review, we reported about an HIV-positive health-care worker in the UK who brought legal proceedings to prevent the National Health Service from notifying his previous patients that he is infected. In February 2002, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales (Civil Division) upheld a ban on publishing his name and that of the health authority for which he worked.