Lawrence v Campbell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1859 |
| Date | 07 March 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 186
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
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
- Detention of Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong, Re The
- Yukilon Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Dato' Wong Gek Meng
-
R (Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
...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......
-
The RBS Rights Issue Litigation
...to determine whether a document is privileged from production in English proceedings is (so far as I am aware) Lawrence v Campbell [1859] 4 Drew 485. 142 That case concerned an action by the claimant for the return of a sum of money allegedly held on trust for him, which had been transferre......