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
6 Apr 2020 |

Wrongful Trading: Legal position in Jersey

During these uncertain times, business resilience and continuity is at the forefront and directors o...

Contributors: Mark Brady, Gemma Whale
2 Apr 2020 |

Jersey cash box structures: a fast route to funding

It is no surprise, as a result of the wider economic unpredictability arising from COVID-19, that li...

13 Mar 2020 |

Appleby contributes five chapters to Global Legal Insights – Fund Finance 2020

Appleby provided five chapters to the Global Legal Insights - Fund Finance 2020 Guide. The publicati...

5 Mar 2020 |

Jersey: a thriving hub for Energy & Natural Resources investment in Africa

Jersey’s role as a conduit for investment in energy and natural resources projects on the African ...

Contributors: Lebogang Maimane
27 Feb 2020 |

Citywealth 60 second Interview

David Dorgan speaks to Citywealth about being a Private Client and Trust lawyer and what it is like ...

25 Feb 2020 |

Employee benefit trusts

Whilst employee incentive plans of varying forms have been utilised in the US, UK and other parts of...

Contributors: Vincent Chan
17 Feb 2020 |

Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 20-

The Government of Jersey is currently consulting on the draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Pro...

7 Feb 2020 |

Further safeguards for Jersey depositors

The Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 2020 (the Regu...

Contributors: Gemma Whale
4 Feb 2020 |

Asking the right questions

We live in an age of transparency, with openness and accountability increasingly demanded from busin...

31 Jan 2020 |

Brexit Day has arrived: What does that mean for Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man?

Brexit Day has arrived, and at 11 o’clock this evening the UK’s EU membership will come to an en...