Documents which did not appear obviously privileged
Documents which did not appear obviously privileged
I should start by observing that this description is, in a sense, shorthand. As considered at some length above, the issue is not as such whether the document was obviously privileged but whether it should have been obvious to the reasonable solicitor that a privileged document had been disclosed by mistake. But where the document is not itself obviously privileged it is all the less likely to be the case that the reasonable solicitor should have reached the conclusion that it had been inadvertently disclosed. The flipside of this argument is Ms Hannaford’s submission that some documents had “red flags” on them because they were very clearly privileged and even marked as privileged.
- Heading
- Background
- Disclosure
- The parties’ disclosure exercises
- Legal principles: privilege
- Inadvertent disclosure of privileged material
- Specific issues relevant to the review in this case
- The subjective review
- The relevance of Quinn Emanuel’s review
- The 20 groups of Use Pursued Documents
- Documents which did not appear obviously privileged
- Line 15
- Line 16
- Line 20
- Line 22
- Lines 24, 25 and 26
- Line 12
- Documents where there is an identifiable Lawyer recipient/ Commentator but not obvious that the content is legal advice
- Line 14
- Redacted documents which had already been reviewed for privilege, and no obvious reason to question it
- Line 19
- Documents where redaction was inconsistent
- Documents in which the content is potentially legal advice or reflects the substance of legal advice, but it was considered these were deliberately disclosed as answering to D35
- Conclusions
![HT-2022-000132 - [2025] EWHC 1058 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)