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
5 Jan 2022 |

Trustee Knowledge Series: Advanced Paper Six: Overview of protectors 'ad serviendum ac protegendum”

Appleby Private Client & Trust Partner David Dorgan has authored and distributed a series of Tru...

25 Nov 2021 |

Regulatory Approach to ESG across the Crown Dependencies

New requirements may require investment products to display a label reflecting their sustainability ...

24 Nov 2021 |

'Jersey's Relationship with India: Political, Commercial and Cultural Connections'

Jersey First for Finance has recently published a guide entitled ‘Jersey’s relationship with Ind...

18 Nov 2021 |

Trustee Knowledge Series: Advanced Paper Five - Trusts with Reserved Powers

Appleby Private Client & Trust Partner David Dorgan has authored and distributed a series of Tru...

11 Oct 2021 |

Trustee Knowledge Series: Advanced Paper Four: The proper law and place of administration of trusts and courts with exclusive jurisdiction

Over the next twelve months, Appleby Private Client & Trust Partner David Dorgan will author and...

7 Oct 2021 |

Jersey: an evolving global platform: Jersey First for Finance 2021

This article, taken from Jersey ~ First for Finance ‒ Celebrating 60 Years of Finance 1961-2021 wa...

4 Oct 2021 |

Navigating the Jersey M&A landscape (2 of 3)

This is the second of a series of three articles, each dealing with topics to be considered when buy...

Contributors: Andrew Weaver
22 Sep 2021 |

Minute Writing Training

Trustees are under a statutory duty to keep accurate records of their trusteeship, but what does tha...

15 Sep 2021 |

Navigating the Jersey M&A landscape

This is the first of a series of three articles, each dealing with topics to be considered when buyi...

Contributors: Andrew Weaver
2 Sep 2021 |

Duties of Trustees

The relationship of trustees to beneficiaries is viewed as fiduciary, meaning there are certain equi...