Lawrence v Campbell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court of Chancery
Judgment Date07 March 1859
Date07 March 1859

English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 186

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Lawrence
and
Campbell

S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 780; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1071; 7 W. r. 336. Approved, Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 361; Lyell v. Kennedy, 1883, 9 App. Cas. 90; Lowden v. Blakey, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 334.

Privilege. Confidential Communications. Scotch Solicitor and Law Agent.

[485] lawrence v. campbell. March 7, 1859. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 780; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1071; 7 W. E. 336. Approved, Minefv. Morgan, 1873, L. E. 8 Ch. 361; Lyell v. Kennedy, 1883, 9 App. Gas. 90; Lowden v. Blakey, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 334.] Privilege. Confidential Communications. Scotch Solicitor and Law Agent. ò .ò'. * The same privilege with respect to the .non-production of confidential communications as between an English solicitor and his client, is extended to like communications as between a Scotch solicitor and law agent practising in London (though nob admitted an English solicitor) and his client in Scotland. This was a summons adjourned from Chambers. The Plaintiff had obtained the usual order for production of all documents in the possession of the Defendants Alexander Eobertsou and Thomas Barber Simson. These Defendants filed an affidavit containing a schedule of documents divided into two parts and objected to produce the documents set forth in the second part of the schedule on the ground of privilege. The object of the suit was to enforce payment of the sum of £173, 5s. lid. alleged to have been remitted by the Defendant, Campbell, to the Defendants, Messrs. Eobertson & Simson, in trust for the Plaintiff. It appeared from the statements-in the bill that Mr. Campbell, the principal Defendant, was residing at Jura House in the island of Jura in Scotland, and that Messrs. Eobertson & Simson were his agents and were carrying on business at Westminster as Scotch solicitors and law agents, and that Messrs. Eobertson & Simson were not English attornies or solicitors, but the Plaintiff 6, LAWKENCE .X. CAMPBELL 187 alleged that the said Defendants, Robertson &,Simson,, were acting in the matter as the ordinary agents and as trustees, lor the Defendant, Campbell, and for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff by his bill alleged that the correspondence'between the Defendant, Campbell, and the De-£486.]-fendants, Robertsonò& Simson, would make out a trust for the Plaintiff, and that he was, entitled to the production of that correspondence. The Defendants, Messrs. Robertson & Simson, by their answer, admitted that they had received from ; Mr; Campbell a sum of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Detention of Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong, Re The
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1998
  • Yukilon Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Dato' Wong Gek Meng
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1997
  • R (Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 14 October 2009
    ...protection of communications between a client and his agent was very well stated by the late Vice Chancellor Kindersley in the case of Lawrence v Campbell. He says, “the general principle is founded upon this, that the exigencies of mankind require that in matters of business which may lead......
  • R (Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 December 2010
    ...sought from Mr Mullings on a professional basis. 40 Lord Pannick also pointed to the extension of the scope of LPP to foreign lawyers. Lawrence v Campbell (1859) 4 Drew. 485, where Sir Richard Kindersley VC held that it applied in relation to a Scottish lawyer, is an early example. There h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT