Court returns solicitor documents to client as no evidence of undue influence or privilege waiver exists.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court returned three solicitor documents to the respondent after examining them for evidence of undue influence or privilege waiver. The applicant argued these documents showed improper incentives to bypass privilege, but the court found no references to coercion, conspiracy, or improper conduct in the letters. Consequently, the court determined the documents did not fall under exceptions to legal professional privilege and ordered their return.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedLegal Professional Privilege Act 1996; Solicitors Act 1954: Documents held by solicitors are subject to inspection only where privilege is waived or exceptions apply, and no such waiver or exception exists where no evidence of undue influence, coercion, or improper incentives is found.
Keywords
AI generatedFull text
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] IEHC 476
THE HIGH COURT
2000 No. 1628 P
BETWEEN/
MICHAEL COLIN GEOFFREY McMULLEN
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
AND
GILES J. KENNEDY, PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF
GILES J. KENNEDY & COMPANY, SOLICITORS
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
Supplemental decision of Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy dated 24th July, 2007.
1. This supplemental decision arises out of the judgment given on 17th July, 2007, one week ago, where the court, in refusing the
application for inspection of the litigation file of the respondent/defendant in relation to High Court proceedings 1998 No. 62188 P
between the applicant and his former solicitors, Kent, Carty & Company. The court, having refused the application in respect of all but
document No. 174 being a letter dated 17th May, 1989 between the respondent/defendant herein and its client, Admiral Underwriting
Agencies (Ireland) Limited, in relation to which this Court held that privilege had been waived, ordered that the preceding three
documents in Part II of the First Schedule of the affidavit of discovery of the respondent/defendant be examined by the court.
2. The documents were duly submitted to the court on 17th July last.
3. The documents conform to the short description given in Part II of the first Schedule to the affidavit of discovery. They are short,
clear and unambiguous, deal with the defence in the action in a sequential way and form a continuum leading up to document No. 174
in respect of which the court has held privilege to have been waived.
4. Having examined the documents, the court finds no evidence nor, indeed, any reference whether direct or indirect of undue
influence, improper incentives and/or coercion to induce the applicant’s counsel to collaborate or undertake to give evidence without
reference to privilege or otherwise in the action McMullen v. Carty.
5. Neither has the court found any reference to conspiracy or arrangement whereby the defendant was successful in defeating Mr.
McMullen’s complaint.
6. Furthermore, there is no basis in those letters that the defendant acted improperly in putting to the plaintiff’s counsel incentives to
ensure by underhand, deceit or coercive means that counsel complied in the giving of privileged testimony nor that the defendant
acted improperly in any other way.
7. Accordingly, none of the documents come within the scope of the exceptions to the principles of legal professional privilege.
8. The court will return the three documents, 171 to 173 to the respondent/defendant.