An original document, which was not covered by legal professional privilege at its creation, would not, as a result of revisions being made as a result of legal advice, retrospectively become privileged even if an incidental consequence of its disclosure and comparison with the disclosed final version might be to allow inferences to be drawn about why the two versions were different, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
University of Dundee v Chakraborty [2022] EAT 150
What are the practical implications of this case?
The outcome of this appeal is unsurprising because, while not expressly stating to do so, it follows the High Court authority of Jet2.Com where Morris J found that legal privilege does not apply to ‘raw materials’ which were not created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, even when lawyers are subsequently consulted on those documents.
It follows from this judgment that employers should think carefully about whether or not they are likely to involve lawyers at some stage in relation to internal investigations and, if so, to involve them from the start to ensure that legal professional privilege applies wherever desirable and possible. This judgment demonstrates that a half and half approach of taking on board legal advice at a later stage, when the investigation report has already been drafted, will not allow legal professional privilege to be claimed over existing documents and could lead to some awkward inferences being drawn about the changes made to the original documents after receipt of the legal advice.
Court details
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>