Neal v Jones (t/a Jones Motors)

Privilege is tied to the purpose and dispute for which a document was created. Legal professional privilege protected correspondence concerning a partnership dispute where no iniquity was involved. It did not protect correspondence sent by the claimant’s solicitors to the opposing party, nor did it protect that correspondence in a separate personal injury action. A without prejudice heading could engage negotiation or settlement privilege only for the dispute in which the negotiations occurred. It could not transfer protection to a different dispute. Documents held privileged could not be referred to or used in the appeal.

This was an interlocutory application in an appeal from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Bristol District Registry. The Court of Appeal considered whether three letters dated 9 May, 26 June and 5 July 2001 were protected by legal professional privilege or, in the case of the 26 June letter, by negotiation or settlement privilege. The court also considered whether the iniquity exception applied.

Lord Justice Henry gave the judgment, and Lady Justice Hale agreed.

1. The letter of 9 May 2001 was privileged. It dealt with matters concerning the partnership dispute, and there was no iniquity behind it.
2. The letter of 26 June 2001 was not protected by legal professional privilege. It was written by the claimant’s solicitors to Miss De’Tedstone, the opposing party in the partnership dispute. Legal professional privilege could not attach to a document passing from one side to the other in a dispute. It was also not privileged for the purposes of the separate personal injury action.
3. The letter of 26 June was headed without prejudice. Any negotiation or settlement privilege could apply only for the purposes of the partnership dispute. It did not extend to the different dispute before the court.
4. The letter of 5 July 2001 was privileged because it gave legal advice. Again, there was no iniquity engaging the exception.

The letters of 9 May and 5 July were not to be referred to or used. The solicitors and counsel could continue to act, and the claimant was adequately protected by the usual order. Other issues were left for determination at the hearing of the appeal. There was no order as to costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On an interlocutory application in an appeal from the High Court, the court held that the letters of 9 May and 5 July 2001 were privileged, that the letter of 26 June 2001 was not privileged, and made no order as to costs.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: The judgment appealed from and its citation are not stated in the judgment.