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
27 Sep 2022

Similar but Different

While the basic features of the trust remain, there are some notable differences in how trusts can b...

1 Aug 2022

Register of Overseas Entities: A Jersey perspective

The Register of Overseas Entities at Companies House (ROE), as contemplated by the Economic Crime (T...

30 Jun 2022

Digital Identification in Jersey

There have been considerable changes made to the way we do business in recent times. These changes w...

Contributors: Gemma Whale, Paul Worsnop
17 Jun 2022

Proposals to amend the Powers of Attorney (Jersey) Law 1995

Following the recent update from our Guernsey colleagues on the introduction of lasting or enduring ...

Contributors: Gemma Whale
9 Jun 2022

Trustee Knowledge Series: Masters Paper Two: Family Governance

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

17 May 2022

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

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

Contributors: Andrew Weaver
5 May 2022

The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022: a Jersey perspective

The new Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act received Royal Assent on 15 March 2022 (th...

Contributors: Andrew Weaver, Gemma Whale
21 Apr 2022

Listing Private Equity Acquisition Debt on The International Stock Exchange

This article provides a summary of Appleby listing agent services in the Channel Islands, and also o...

12 Apr 2022

Trustee Knowledge Series: Masters Paper One: PTC Structures

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

16 Mar 2022

Trustee Knowledge Series: Advanced Paper Eight: Amending Mistakes

It is almost inevitable that during the life of most trusts (which can now last indefinitely in many...