APR 2024 Unit 5 – Discovery & Privilege Flashcards
- The foundation dictum in relation to Privilege in this jurisdiction can be founded in the case of Smurfit Paribas bank –v- AAB Expert Finance Ltd. [1990] 1 IR 469. This case stated that privilege would attach to documents:
(i) where the public interest lies in favour of revealing the contents of the document;
(ii) where the advantage which results from revealing facts outweighs the disadvantage which would result in not revealing the facts;
(iii) in the interests of the administration of justice; or
(iv) all of the above.
(iv) all of the above.
- Legal Advice Privilege entitles a client to:
(i) refuse to disclose any communications between himself/herself and a lawyer that were made for the purpose of giving legal advice;
(ii) refuse to disclose any communications between himself/herself and his/her lawyer, in the course of their professional relationship, that were made for the purpose of giving legal advice;
(iii) refuse to disclose any communications in relation to legal advice that his/her lawyer has given him/her in the context of litigation; or
(iv) refuse to disclose communications between himself/herself and his/her lawyer;
(ii) refuse to disclose any communications between himself/herself and his/her lawyer, in the course of their professional relationship, that were made for the purpose of giving legal advice;
- Which one of the following does the Litigation Privilege not cover:
(i) communications between a lawyer and a client where the client gives instructions to the lawyer as to how he wants his case to be handled;
(ii) communications between a client and a third party (eg.) an expert witness as to how a particular problem, which is the subject matter of the dispute, occurred;
(iii) communications between a lawyer and a third party in relation to a case that the expert witness has been hired for; or
(iv) communications between a lawyer and a third party relating to a dispute that the third party is having with his neighbours.
(iv) communications between a lawyer and a third party relating to a dispute that the third party is having with his neighbours.
- A & B are in a dispute. C is hired as A’s lawyer. B’s legal team seek discovery of a number of documents, some of which you (as C’s trainee) feel are covered under the Legal Advice privilege. What are your reasons for finding so?
(i) the document sought to be disclosed contains confidential legal advice, which was made in the course of A’s relationship with C;
(ii) the document sought to be disclosed contains confidential legal advice;
(iii) the document sought to be disclosed contains legal advice from C to A in relation to contemplated litigation; or
(iv) the document sought to be disclosed contains advice from C to A that was made in the course of A’s relationship with C and which relates to contemplated litigation.
(i) the document sought to be disclosed contains confidential legal advice, which was made in the course of A’s relationship with C;
- In order to sustain Legal Advice Privilege there has to be a communication (i.e.) information passing between a lawyer and a client either giving, receiving or formulating legal advice. Which of the following would not amount to communication?:
(i) notes and memos of conversations with the client;
(ii) the lawyer’s bill of costs;
(iii) blood samples; or
(iv) none of the above.
(iv) none of the above.
- As with question 5 above, but which of the following would amount to communication?
(i) communications between a client and someone else which the lawyer has seen or has heard;
(ii) communications between a lawyer and a third party in relation to a matter upon which the legal advice was sought;
(iii) communications between a lawyer and a client’s agent (who is authorised by the client to accept legal advice on their behalf); or
(iv) communications between a lawyer and a client regarding the client’s identity or address.
iii) communications between a lawyer and a client’s agent (who is authorised by the client to accept legal advice on their behalf); or
- One of the following statements is not true, which one is it?:
(i) communications between A and the Attorney General is covered under the Legal Advice Privilege;
(ii) communications between A and a foreign lawyer is covered under the Legal Advice Privilege;
(iii) communications between A and a retired barrister is covered under the Legal Advice Privilege; or
(iv) communications between A and a person who the client reasonably believes is a lawyers covered under the Legal Advice Privilege.
(iii) communications between A and a retired barrister is covered under the Legal Advice Privilege;
- Which of the following cases distinguished between legal advice and legal assistance in deciding that only the former would attract privilege?
(i) Miley –v- Flood [2001] ILRM 489;
(ii) Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd. –v- AAB Export Finance Ltd. [1990] ILRM 469;
(iii) Bord na gCon –v- Murphy [1970] IR 301; or
(iv) Gallagher –v- Stanley & National Maternity Hospital [1998] 2 IR 267.
(ii) Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd. –v- AAB Export Finance Ltd. [1990] ILRM 469;
- Which of the following cases distinguished between legal advice and legal assistance in deciding that only the former would attract privilege?
(i) Miley –v- Flood [2001] ILRM 489;
(ii) Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd. –v- AAB Export Finance Ltd. [1990] ILRM 469;
(iii) Bord na gCon –v- Murphy [1970] IR 301; or
(iv) Gallagher –v- Stanley & National Maternity Hospital [1998] 2 IR 267.
(iv) Gallagher –v- Stanley & National Maternity Hospital [1998] 2 IR 267.
- What are the reasons behind Litigation Privilege?
(i) protection of the privacy of counsel;
(ii) protection of the administration of justice;
(iii) protect the work product of a lawyer and the adversarial system;
(iv) all of the above.
(iv) all of the above.
- What must be present in order for a document/communication to be protected by Litigation Privilege?
(i) it was made between the client and the lawyer;
(ii) it was made between the client and a third party (eg.) expert witness;
(iii) it was made in preparation of litigation; or
(iv) it contained legal advice.
(iii) it was made in preparation of litigation;
- Where a document is formulated with mixed motives what is the locus classicus that was established in the case of Waugh –v- British Railways Board [1980] AC 521:
(i) it will be protected by privilege where the dominant purpose is in contemplation of litigation;
(ii) it will be protected by privilege as long as there is some indication that it was prepared in contemplation of litigation;
(iii) it is only protected by privilege where the only purpose for the document is in contemplation of litigation;
(i) it will be protected by privilege where the dominant purpose is in contemplation of litigation;
- How are the motives for making such a document determined by the Court?
(i) It is the motive of the person who made the document which is determinative;
(ii) It is the motive of the person who instigated the making of the document which is determinative;
(iii) It is not necessary for the motives behind the making of such documents to be looked at by the Court;
(iv) The courts determine the motives on a subjective basis in that it is up to the courts to decide on the matter based on the facts of the case before them.
(ii) It is the motive of the person who instigated the making of the document which is determinative;
- Where will Litigation Privilege apply?
(i) documents that were in existence before the litigation commenced;
(ii) documents that are communications with the other side;
(iii) documents that were intended by A to be given to the other side (B) but then A changed his mind;
(iv) documents that have been assembled by the Gardaí in relation to the commission of a crime.
(iii) documents that were intended by A to be given to the other side (B) but then A changed his mind;
- There are five exceptions to Legal Professional Privilege. Which of the following is not one of the five exceptions:
(i) testamentary disposition;
(ii) disclosure of expert witness reports;
(iii) cases involving the welfare of children;
(iv) where the innocence of an accused is at stake.
(ii) disclosure of expert witness reports;
- What is the procedure when one party alleges that a document or communication should be disclosed on the basis that it was made in furtherance of conduct which is criminal fraudulent or injurious to the interests of justice?
(i) Party seeking disclosure should establish that the allegation is plausible or viable;
(ii) Party seeking disclosure should present some prima facie evidence that the allegation has a foundation in fact;
(iii) Party wanting the document to remain privileged should do both (i) and (ii) above; or
(iv) (i) above but it is arguable that (ii) above is the correct test to apply.
(i) above but it is arguable that (ii) above is the correct test to apply.
- Will Legal Professional Privilege be lost in any of the following circumstances:
(i) Where the solicitor gives legal advice to the client that unless he acts in a certain way he may be open to prosecution;
(ii) Where the solicitor gives legal advice to the client that if he acts in a particular way, he may be open to a particular penalty;
(iii) Where the solicitor gives legal advice to the client which is relevant to a commission of a crime or a fraud; or
(iv) Where the solicitor gives legal advice to the client which is in furtherance of a crime or a fraud
(iv) Where the solicitor gives legal advice to the client which is in furtherance of a crime or a frau
- In the case of testamentary dispositions, where the Court, in deciding whether or not certain communications are privileged, needs to balance competing interests, which interests will prevail:
(i) Right of the court in a probate case to know all that the witness knows about a contested will;
(ii) Right of a party to privilege over communications which passes between a solicitor and a witness in advance of contemplated litigation;
(iii) Right of the deceased to have his last wishes carried out without question;
(iv) None of the above.
(i) Right of the court in a probate case to know all that the witness knows about a contested will;
- What is the position in relation to the piercing of Legal Professional Privilege where the innocence of an accused is at stake?:
(i) The court will balance the competing interests of the public in the due and orderly administration of justice against those of the accused in ensuring all the evidence is before the Court;
(ii) The doctrine of “once privileged always privileged” should prevail and therefore no balancing exercise should be carried out;
(iii) There should be no screen keeping relevant information for the jury which might assist the accused; or
(iv) None of the above since the matter is unclear in Ireland.
(iv) None of the above since the matter is unclear in Ireland.
- A & B are in dispute. A listed the expert report of X, Y & Z on the Schedule of Reports which was served on B. Subsequently A wishes to withdraw expert Y from the Schedule on the basis that he no longer intends to call Y at the hearing. What does this mean:
(i) B should withdraw Y from the Schedule, and A is not permitted to rely on Y’s evidence in Court;
(ii) B should withdraw Y from the Schedule but A may still rely on Y’s evidence in Court;
(iii) B should withdraw Y from the Schedule. Neither A nor B are permitted to rely on Y’s evidence in Court; or
(iv) B should withdraw Y from the Schedule. A is not permitted to rely on Y’s evidence in Court B may still rely on Y’s report in support of his case.
(iii) B should withdraw Y from the Schedule. Neither A nor B are permitted to rely on Y’s evidence in Court; or
- What is the duration of Legal Professional Privilege:
(i) The maxim “once privileged always privileged” applies to all documents;
(ii) The maxim at (i) above only applies to legal advice privilege. In relation to litigation privilege, the privilege applies only for as long as the proceedings remain in being;
(iii) There should be a discretionary balance of the relevant interests involved (i.e.) between fairness and accuracy on the one hand and the interest served by the privilege on the other; or
(iv) The majority are in favour of (i) above, however, all of the above are relevant since there has been no definitive decision on the matter.
(iv) The majority are in favour of (i) above, however, all of the above are relevant since there has been no definitive decision on the matter.
- Who holds the Legal Professional Privilege?
(i) The client;
(ii) The lawyer;
(iii) A client and a third party who has a common interest with the client as regards the subject matter of the privileged document; or
(iv) Both (i) and (iii) above.
(iii) A client and a third party who has a common interest with the client as regards the subject matter of the privileged document; or
- When will a client be deemed NOT to have waived the Privilege?
(i) Revelation by the lawyer (not acting outside of his instructions) of the information contained in a document;
(ii) Disclosure/part disclosure of the document to the public;
(iii) Where the document is disclosed to a third party with a common interest;
(iv) Where the contents of legal communications has been put in issue.
(iii) Where the document is disclosed to a third party with a common interest;
- What is the meaning of the ‘Without Prejudice’ Privilege?
(i) Communication in furtherance of a bona fide attempt to settle a dispute;
(ii) Communication that is not meant to damage or further either Parties’ case;
(iii) Communication made by one party in a genuine attempt to settle. If the negotiations were to fail, this communication would not be disclosed without the consent of both parties.
(iv) (ii) and (iii) above.
(iii) Communication made by one party in a genuine attempt to settle. If the negotiations were to fail, this communication would not be disclosed without the consent of both parties.
(iv) (ii) and (iii) above.
- What was the view taken by the Courts in the seminal case of Ryan –v- Connolly [2001] 2 ILRM 174 in relation to “Without Prejudice” privilege?
(i) That it is confined in its ambit to admissions made in the context of settlement negotiations;
(ii) That it extends to protect a party from being prejudiced in any way by anything that is said in the course of settlement negotiations;
(iii) That the court should balance the interest in disclosure against the public interest in encouraging settlements in cases where disclosure is sought not for the purpose of holding an opponent to admissions made in the offer but to demonstrate why a particular course was taken.
(iv) That it was a vital element to the negotiation process and therefore, the courts should be reluctant to pierce it except in the most exceptional of circumstances.
(iii) That the court should balance the interest in disclosure against the public interest in encouraging settlements in cases where disclosure is sought not for the purpose of holding an opponent to admissions made in the offer but to demonstrate why a particular course was taken.
- What is necessary for a Party who is trying to assert the “Without Prejudice” Privilege to show to the Court:
(i) That a dispute existed between the Parties in which legal proceedings had commenced or were contemplated;
(ii) The communication was made in a genuine attempt to further the settlement negotiations of the dispute;
(iii) That the words “Without Prejudice” were included on the communication; or
(iv) All of the above, although (iii) is not definitive.
(iv) All of the above, although (iii) is not definitive.
- In what situations will “Without Prejudice” communications not be allowed into evidence?
(i) Where they relate to some illegality, impropriety, threats or blackmail;
(ii) Where they relate to previous litigation with the same subject matter as between the same or between different parties;
(iii) Where they are needed to establish that negotiations led to an agreement and as to what was actually agreed between the parties as a result and whether that gives rise to an estoppel;
(iv) Where they are there to prove the fact of compromise.
(ii) Where they relate to previous litigation with the same subject matter as between the same or between different parties;
- In the case of Murphy –v –Dublin Corporation [1972] IR 215, which was approved in the case of Ambiorix Ltd. –v- Minster for the Environment, the issue of Public Interest Privilege was thoroughly discussed. What was the decision in this case:
(i) It was for the Minister to decide whether certain documents should be disclosed;
(ii) The Court had to accept the decision of the Minister as to whether or not certain documents were privileged;
(iii) It was for the Court to decide whether privilege existed or not and in reaching such a decision the Court should take into consideration where the public interest lay, and that the view of the Minister should not automatically be accepted in this regard;
(iv) Documents may be withheld on the basis that they belong to a certain class of documents.
(iii) It was for the Court to decide whether privilege existed or not and in reaching such a decision the Court should take into consideration where the public interest lay, and that the view of the Minister should not automatically be accepted in this regard;