Undertaking an early and detailed investigation can have a number of advantages. It enables the organisation to work out exactly what has happened and who and what is involved. This means that effective steps can be taken to stop further loss or damage, to identify wrongdoers, to recover misappropriated funds, to protect employees and customers, to manage potential reputational issues, to deal effectively with insurers and to undertake a proper assessment of the organisation’s potential liability. In other words, it gives the organisation the tools it needs to get back on the front foot and to take a proactive approach to the problem. In regulated sectors, it enables the organisation to deal effectively with its regulators and to demonstrate robust governance.

An investigation report, and information obtained during an investigation, can however be a double edged sword. Unless protected by legal or litigation privilege, the report itself, and documents produced for the purposes of the investigation, could be disclosable in litigation or to prosecutors or regulators. If the report contains damaging information, this could seriously undermine the organisation’s ability to defend its position.

Where legal or litigation privilege applies, documents are protected from disclosure. Privilege is therefore an important benefit. It enables clients who are facing potential litigation or prosecution to deal openly and transparently with their lawyers without the risk that their communications will have to be disclosed if litigation is actually commenced or if a prosecution is brought.

The concept of legal and litigation privilege in Jersey and Guernsey closely follows the English law concept. In a recent case in England involving the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the English High Court caused considerable concern with a decision which appeared to narrow dramatically the scope of privilege in relation to internal investigations. The SFO had sought access to various documents which had been created by lawyers and accountants retained by a company undertaking an internal investigation into allegations of corruption and fraud in its overseas operations.

The company claimed the documents were protected by privilege as they were created in the course of an investigation in circumstances where a criminal prosecution was reasonably contemplated. The High Court disagreed, essentially finding that the documents had been created at too early a point in time when it could not properly be said that a prosecution was reasonably contemplated. The Court therefore ordered that the majority of the documents sought by the SFO were not protected from disclosure at all.

The company appealed. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision finding that even though the internal investigation was commenced well before the SFO had launched its own investigation, there was a clear possibility at that early stage that criminal proceedings might be brought. The Court therefore found that the company had commenced its own investigation for the dominant purpose of protecting its position in those proceedings. The company’s claim for privilege was therefore upheld.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is important. It has affirmed the protection afforded by litigation privilege in the context of internal investigations. It is critical, however, that early legal advice is obtained where an internal investigation is contemplated to make sure that material produced during the investigation and the investigation report are protected and that the investigation itself does not become a hostage to fortune.

Type

Insight

Locations

Jersey

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
7 Nov 2019 |

Jersey Schemes of Arrangement: Is it now time to decapitate the headcount test?

Practitioners in Jersey and many other commonwealth jurisdictions who advise on creditors’ and mem...

Contributors: James Gaudin, Andrew Weaver
7 Nov 2019 |

The Inequality of Equality Legislation in the Channel Islands

This summer Guernsey launched its public consultation in relation to proposals to introduce a compre...

9 Oct 2019 |

Transparency and the Crown Dependencies

Transparency of beneficial ownership information has been a political issue since June 2013 when Bri...

18 Sep 2019 |

Offshore listing Vehicles to benefit from the Shanghai - London stock connect

Offshore listing Vehicles to benefit from the Shanghai - London stock connect

Contributors: Huiyan Liew
3 Sep 2019 |

The Anti-Money Laundering Picture in Jersey – 8,000 Steps in the Right Direction

Recent reports in the press suggest that, after a 3 year information gathering process, Lloyds Banki...

12 Aug 2019 |

Enhancing Jersey’s Philanthropic Wealth Structures

There are distinguishing characteristics between charity (which tends to focus on the relief of a pa...

4 Jul 2019 |

Lease – The Dangers of DIY

Like freehold conveyances, leases for terms of more than 9 years must be passed before the Royal Cou...

2 Jul 2019 |

Jersey Property Security and Costs – Good News for Lenders

The case concerned a dégrèvement. This an insolvency procedure which involves creditors being call...

28 Jun 2019 |

Internal Investigations - Evidence for the Prosecution

Sophisticated organisations are frequently required to undertake internal investigations. These can ...

Contributors: Anthony Williams
26 Jun 2019 |

Regulatory Headwinds

Faced with increased scrutiny from regulators on both global and jurisdictional levels, businesses m...

Contributors: David Dorgan