High Court Decision Confirms the Availability of the Protection of Litigation Privilege in the Context of Internal Investigations

by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

In a recent decision, the Chancellor of the High Court in Bilta v RBS confirmed that in certain circumstances litigation privilege may protect from disclosure documents created in the context of an internal investigation. The decision stands in contrast to the 2017 decision of the High Court in SFO v ENRC, which generated significant commentary and some criticism because it was perceived to have narrowed the circumstances in which litigation privilege could arise in the context of internal investigations.


The application in Bilta (UK) Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc and Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited (“Bilta”)[1] concerned whether litigation privilege could be claimed over documents that had been created by the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”) in an internal investigation and included 29 transcripts of interviews with current and former RBS employees (the “Documents”), of which the Claimants sought disclosure.

After a two-year investigation as part of a wider investigation into fraud related to carbon credits, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) wrote to RBS indicating that it was denying RBS nearly £90 million in input tax on the grounds that RBS knew or should have known that certain transactions were connected with fraud. HMRC stated that it wished to give RBS an opportunity to respond before assessing a penalty (the “HMRC Letter”).

Shortly thereafter RBS instructed external solicitors. There followed an internal investigation, considerable cooperation between RBS and HMRC and, on 28 January 2014, RBS’s external solicitors’ final report in response to the HMRC Letter was supplied to HMRC. The report which was furnished to the HMRC drew on the results of the interviews, but did not include copies of the Documents, including the interview transcripts.

The Claimants argued that the purpose of the investigation and the Documents prepared as part of it was multi-dimensional, namely for RBS to inform itself of its position, to provide a full and detailed account of the facts to HMRC and to persuade HMRC not to issue an assessment. RBS’s position was that the dominant purpose of producing the Documents was to defend the HMRC Letter which was analogous to a letter before claim. 

Litigation privilege

The test for whether litigation privilege can be claimed and disclosure resisted is set out in Three Rivers (No 6).[2] The three requirements which must be met can be summarised as (1) litigation is contemplated; (2) the sole or dominant purpose of the communication (or in this case investigation) is the conduct of that litigation; and (3) the litigation must be adversarial.

Legal advice privilege, which applies to communications between a lawyer and client for the purposes of obtaining legal advice, has been construed narrowly by the English courts[3]. As a result, given the reduced circumstances in which legal advice privilege is available, entities are increasingly reliant on litigation privilege in order to resist disclosure of documents created during investigations.

In Bilta the parties did not dispute the test for litigation privilege, nor that litigation was contemplated (namely the threatened assessment by HMRC) or that the litigation was adversarial. The issue in dispute therefore was whether the second limb of the test had been met, namely whether the Documents had been made for the “sole or dominant purpose of conducting that litigation”.[4]

In the earlier judgment in The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (“ENRC”)[5] the High Court applied a strict approach to litigation privilege in the context of self-reporting investigations, applying the principles in Three Rivers (No. 5)[6] and the RBS Rights Issue litigation.[7] In ENRC, Mrs Justice Andrews found that on the facts of that case, the creation of documents in order to obtain advice as to how best to avoid litigation (even if that entailed seeking to settle the dispute) undermined the rationale for litigation privilege and prevented litigation being the dominant purpose of the preparation of the documents in question.

The context which existed in ENRC did not exist in Bilta. The Chancellor found that RBS had taken steps “to protect its position which were only consistent with its overarching purpose being preparation for the litigation…”[8] The Chancellor held that the interviews were conducted and the Documents brought into existence for the sole or at least the dominant purpose of the expected litigation and were therefore covered by litigation privilege.

A number of key points arise from the Bilta judgment:

  1. First, the Chancellor referenced a tension between the judgment in ENRC and that of the Court of Appeal in Re Highgrade Traders[9] (“Highgrade”). Highgrade, which the Chancellor noted appeared not to have been cited in ENRC (although it has since been brought to our attention that the case was cited to Andrews J in the course of the ENRC hearing), suggested that a subsidiary purpose can be subsumed into the dominant litigation purpose of the document. Highgrade concerned the disclosure of an insurers’ report into a fire where arson by the insured party was suspected. The Court found a duality of purpose whereby the insurers wanted to use the report to obtain advice from their solicitors but also to find out the cause of the fire. The Court found that the two purposes were inseparable, particularly in circumstances where the claim of arson had been made and litigation would inevitably follow. In ENRC, the Court held that attempts to settle prevented litigation being the dominant purpose. In Bilta v RBS, the Chancellor citing Highgrade, stated that in his view “one has to take a realistic, indeed commercial, view of the facts.” In his view, the investigation conducted by RBS’s solicitors was not done in order to dissuade HMRC from issuing an assessment or if it was, that it was obviously a subsidiary purpose. He went on to state that “fending off the [Inland Revenue’s] assessment was just part of the continuum that formed the road to the litigation that was considered, rightly, as it turned out, to be almost inevitable.
  2. Second, determining the sole or dominant purpose in each case was a question of fact. As the Chancellor explained, “Although both cases, that is ENRC and this case, involve internal investigations by corporates in the face of scrutiny by government authorities, one cannot simply apply conclusions that were reached on one company's interactions with the Serious Fraud Office in the very different context of another company's interactions with HMRC.
  3. Third, the HMRC Letter was considered a “watershed moment” from which it was highly likely that an assessment would follow. The Chancellor considered that the report prepared by RBS’s solicitors was a “close comparable to a response to a letter before claim in ordinary commercial litigation.” That RBS’s key personnel including legal counsel and its external counsel considered an assessment highly likely and that RBS appointed external solicitors within weeks of receipt of the HMRC Letter also supported the view that RBS was preparing to defend a claim.

It seems the Chancellor considered the HMRC Letter, in which it indicated that it had sufficient evidence to issue an assessment, to be key. In light of the HMRC Letter, a number of subsidiary purposes for conducting the interviews and creating the Documents were “subsumed under the purpose of defeating the expected assessment.” Despite the “ostensibly collaborative and cooperative nature of RBS’s interactions with HMRC after the HMRC letter” this did not alter the position. Even where RBS was meeting with HMRC and updating it on the progress of RBS’s investigation, this did not preclude the investigation being conducted for the dominant purpose of litigation. In contrast, in ENRC, Mrs Justice Andrews held that litigation privilege did not apply to documents intended to equip a party with evidence to persuade a party not to commence proceedings in the first place. However, different to Bilta, on the facts in ENRC, almost all the information generated was intended to be shared with the SFO, with the dominant purpose being to enable reports and presentations to be made to the SFO.


A key takeaway from the different outcomes in ENRC and Bilta, is that when conducting an internal investigation records should be kept of the trigger and the basis for the investigation. Such evidence could well be instrumental in demonstrating that the documents were created for the dominant purpose of the contemplated litigation.

The Court of Appeal may provide greater clarity on the scope of litigation privilege in internal investigations following the hearing of the ENRC appeal in July this year. We will continue to monitor developments on this important area that has material implications for financial institutions and corporates in the conduct of internal investigations.


[1] [2017] EWCH 3535 (Ch).

[2] Lord Carswell, Three Rivers District Council v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No 6) [2005] 1 AC 610 at para 102.

[3] Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor & Company of the Bank of England and another (no 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474; [2003] QB 1556.

[4] [2017] EWCH 3535 (Ch) at paragraph 7.

[5] [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB).

[6] Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor & Company of the Bank of England and another (no 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474; [2003] QB 1556.

[7] Re the RBS Rights Issue Litigation [2016] EWHC 3161 (Ch). We previously reviewed and analysed the ENRC decision in Navigating the Currents – Legal Privilege Under English Law.

[8] [2017] EWCH 3535 (Ch) at paragraph 35.

[9] [1984] BCLC 151.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.