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
2 Sep 2021 |

Duties of Trustees

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

18 Aug 2021 |

Beneficial Owners and Controllers (BOC)

The aim of BOC is to drill-down to the identification of persons who are the beneficial owners and c...

30 Jul 2021 |

Fighting international fraud

First published in New Law Journal, July 2021. Appleby partners Anthony William and Jared Dann an...

Contributors: Jared Dann, Claire Corkish
27 Jul 2021 |

Fund Finance Update – Will Jersey’s new sustainable investment disclosure requirements aid ESG financing?

This article provides an overview of ESG, the hot topic of 2020 that is carrying on full steam throu...

Contributors: Daniel Healy
22 Jul 2021 |

Listing Variable Funding Notes (VFNs) on The International Stock Exchange

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

1 Jul 2021 |

Saunders v Vautier where the beneficial class is not closed - the debate goes on...

The rule in Saunders v Vautier is familiar territory for trust lawyers.  In the modern world it is ...

17 Jun 2021 |

Solvency Statements under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 - Is it time to go paperless?

In April of this year, the Royal Court of Jersey considered the practicalities around the making of ...

Contributors: Kevin McQuillan
11 Jun 2021 |

“Offshore intelligence – Funds in demand” Appleby Podcast

We have recently produced a podcast focused on the Funds industry entitled “Offshore Intelligence ...

2 Jun 2021 |

Why use Jersey entities in restructurings?

As the extension of various forbearance measures and fiscal support packages continues in response t...

Contributors: Gemma Whale, Andrew Weaver
28 May 2021 |

Further updates to the JFSC’s AML Handbook

On 31 May 2021, the handbook for the prevention and detection of money laundering and the financing ...

Contributors: Gemma Whale