Description

Research completed by Professor David Sugarman (Law) was submitted to the UK Court of Appeal (in 2010) and the UK Supreme Court (in 2012) as part of the Law Society’s submission in R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) (Appellants) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 1 On appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 1094.  

The general issue raised in this case is whether legal advice privilege (LAP) – which protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients – should be extended to accountants and other providers of legal advice who are not members of the legal profession and their clients. In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2013, The Supreme Court, by a majority of five to two (Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption dissenting) affirmed the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal that LAP should not be extended, as to do so would extend legal advice privilege beyond what are currently, and have for a long time been, understood to be its limits; that the extension of LAP would generate excessive uncertainty; and that the extension of LAP to providers of legal advice other than members of the legal profession is best addressed by Parliament.  In effect, the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court endorsed the view submitted by the Law Society.

The Law Society was one of five parties permitted to intervene in this case, the others being The General Council of the Bar of England and Wales, The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, AIPPI UK and the Legal Services Board.