Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1971 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Year | 1971 |
| Date | 1971 |
Practice - Discovery - Privilege - Professional privilege - Purchase tax assessment dispute referred to arbitration - Communications between customs and excise commissioners and own legal department - Communications in anticipation of arbitration proceedings - Whether privileged. - Crown - Privilege - Evidence - Objection to produce documents - Claim by head of department - Documents containing information from third parties supplied in confidence - Information in connection with determination of purchase tax and anticipated arbitration - Whether documents privileged on ground of confidence.
By a letter dated July 31, 1967, the complainant company, which had for some years paid purchase tax on the wholesale values of machines made and sold by them on the basis of a formula negotiated with the Customs and Excise Commissioners, claimed that the assessment was too high and asked that the letter be treated as a request for arbitration under section 36 of the
The company applied unsuccessfully to the master for an order for discovery of those documents; but Eveleigh J. on appeal ordered the commissioners to make their claims with greater particularity by a fixed date, in default of which they should produce the documents. Further affidavits were sworn, but the company, claiming that they were still insufficient to comply with Eveleigh J.'s order, took out another summons. It came before Forbes J. who made an order which in effect required production of most of the documents in dispute, but gave the commissioners leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding, (i) that legal professional privilege attached to all the communications between the commissioners and their internal legal advisers from the earliest date at which “litigation” was anticipated, namely, from July 31, 1967, and that professional privilege also attached to the internal memoranda used in the process of valuation under section 3 (1) or obtained in the exercise of the commissioners' powers under section 24 since those documents came into existence after “litigation” was anticipated; and (ii) that the claim for Crown privilege in respect of the class of routine documents could not be sustained, but that the commissioners were entitled to the inherent privilege available to all litigants to withhold from production information from third parties given in confidence for a restricted purpose, and that, accordingly, on that ground those documents were privileged from production.
The company appealed: —
Held dismissing the appeal, (1) that in the circumstances legal professional privilege attached to the communications between the commissioners and their internal legal advisers from receipt of the letter of July 31, 1967, since the commissioners were entitled to take the view (which subsequent correspondence did nothing to disabuse) that whatever value was fixed would almost certainly be challenged (post, pp. 271G–H, 273G–H, 282D–F, 286A).
(2) (Viscount Dilhorne dissenting) that professional privilege did not attach to the memoranda for the first and immediate purpose for which those documents were obtained or came into existence was to assist the commissioners to ascertain the wholesale value of the goods in question in the manner prescribed by the Act (post, pp. 271G–H, 284A–F, 286A).
(3) That the class of documents of a routine kind were not privileged from production on the ground that they contained information from third parties given in confidence since no such ground of privilege existed (post, pp. 271G–H, 280F–H, 282C, 286A).
(4) But that the memoranda (which consisted principally of documents or information obtained from third parties) and documents of a routine kind were privileged from production on the ground that it was in the public interest that they should not be disclosed since knowledge that the commissioners could not keep such information secret might be harmful to the efficient working of the Act (post, pp. 271G–H, 274E, 285F–H, 286A).
Per curiam. Confidentiality” is not a separate head of privilege, but it may be a very material consideration to bear in mind when privilege is claimed on the ground of public interest (post, p. 285A).
The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:
Admiralty v. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co. Ltd.
Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co. Ltd. v. London and North Western Railway Co.[
Chantrey Martin & Co. v. Martin[
Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners[
Enthoven v. Cobb(
Hopkinson v. Lord Burghley(
Jones v. Great Central Railway Co.[
Longthorn v. British Transport Commission[
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners[
Ogden v. London Electric Railway Co.(
Reynolds v. Godlee(
Seabrook v. British Transport Commission[
Watson v. Cammell Laird & Co. (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Ltd.[
Whitehill v. Glasgow Corporation,
The following additional cases were cited in argument: Adam Steamship Co.
Ltd. v. London Assurance Corporation[
Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia(
Ankin v. London and North Eastern Railway Co.[
Attorney-General v. Clough[
Attorney-General v. Mulholland; Attorney-General v. Foster[
Bristol Corporation v. Cox(
Bulman and Dixon v. Young, Ehlers & Co. and Commercial S.S. Co.(
Bustros v. White(
City of Baroda, The(
Connecticut Importing Co. v. Continental D;stilling Corporation(
Conway v. Rimmer[
Cowan v. Stanhill Estates Pty. Ltd.[
Dunbar v. Harvie(
Ellis v. Watson(
Fenner v. London and South Eastern Railway Co.(
Gamini Bus Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner for Income Tax, Colombo[
Graham Farm Land Co. v. Commonwealth(
Greenlaw v. King(
Henderson v. M'Gown,
Hubbard v. Vosper[
Jenkins v. Glasgow Corporation,
Joseph Hargreaves Ltd., In re[
Krew v. Commissioner for Taxation(
Lee v. Birrell(
Macdonald v. Hedderwick & Sons(
M'Corquodale v. Bell(
Milne v. Wakelin (Milne's Judicial Factor),
Mortimer v. M'Callan(
Parr v. London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co.(
Reg. v. Beynon[
Reg. v. Lewes Justices, Ex Parte Secretary of State for Home Department[
Reg. v. Snider[
Reid v. Langlois(
Russell v. Jackson(
Smith v. East India Co.(
Society of Medical Officers of Health v. Hope[
Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co. v. Quick(
Storey v. Lord Lennox(
Theodor Korner, The(
Westminster Airways Ltd. v. Kuwait Oil Co. Ltd.[
Wheeler v. Le Marchant(
Woolley v. North London...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
D. (Married Woman) (Respondent) v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Appellants)
...assist the court to ascertain facts which are revelant to an issue upon which it is adjudicating. ( Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2) [1974] A.C. 405 at pp. 433/4). The private promise of confidentiality must yield to the general public inte......
-
Irish Press Publications Ltd v Minister for Enterprise
...General Defendants Cases mentioned in this report:- Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Comrs. (No. 2) [1974] A.C. 405; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 268; [1973] 2 All E.R. 1169. Ambiorix Ltd. v. Minister for the Environment (No. 1) [1992] 1 I.R. 277; [1992] I.L.R.M. 209. Attorn......
-
Telesystem Intl Wireless Inc. v CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners LP
...v. Guest, [1898] 1 Q.B. 759; (1899), 67 L.J.Q.B. 505. (5) Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs & Excise Commrs. (No. 2), [1974] A.C. 405; [1973] 2 All E.R. 1169. (6) Goddard v. Nationwide Bldg. Socy., [1987] Q.B. 670; [1986] 3 All E.R. 264. (7) Helliwell v. Piggott-Sims, [19......
-
Brown v. Capital District Health Authority et al., 2006 NSSC 348
...when assessing public interest immunity claims (See Compton (Alfred) Amusement Machines v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2) , [1974] A.C. 405 (H.L.)). The only basis for excluding relevant evidence, on a case by case basis, appears to be where the evidence is found to be unnecessary......
-
Australia
...Tompkins v Greater London Council & Anor [1988] 3 All ER 737. 83 . Alfred Crompton Amusement Mach. Ltd. v Customs & Excise Comm’rs (No 2) [1974] AC 405, [1973] 2 All ER 1169, [1973] 3 WLR 268; D v National Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171, [1977] 1 All ER 589, [......
-
Secrecy Provisions in Commonwealth Legislation
...Ltd vCommissionerofTaxation (1963) 113 CLR 475.59See DMeagher. Organised Crime (1983) 90 (hereafter referred to as Meagher).60 [1973] 2All ER 1169. 58Federal Law Review [VOLUME 9Anumberofsecrecy provisions inCommonwealthlegislation expresslyprohibit any disclosureofinformation which is abre......
-
Electronic discovery issues: disclosure requirements in Britain, Canada, and Australia.
...exist, termed confidentiality as between client and professional advisors and post litem motam privilege. (29.) See Alfred Crompton, [1974] A.C. 405. However, a distinction is drawn for certain purposes under European law where the European Commission exercises regulatory powers to order di......
-
Privilege in Civil Cases Revisited
...[Greymac]. 7 Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No. 2), [1972] 2 Q.B. 102 (C.A.), aff'd [1974] A.C. 405 (H.L.). Privilege in Civil Cases Revisited 221 This paper will examine some of the significant developments since privilege was last addressed......