Wentworth v Lloyd and Others
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judgment Date | 27 May 1864 |
Court | House of Lords |
Date | 27 May 1864 |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 1154
House of Lords
Evidence - Professional Secresy.
Mews' Dig. v. 911; vi. 594, 599; vii. 263; xiv. 1247. S.C. 10 Jur. N.S, 961; 10 L.T. 767; and below, 32 Beav. 467.
[589] W. C. WENTWORTH,-Appellant; J. C. LLOYD and Others,-Respondents [April 28, 29, May 2, 6, 27, 1864]. [Mews' Dig. v. 911; vi. 594, 599 ; vii. 263 ; xiv. 1247. S.C. 10 Jur. N.S, 961; 10 L.T. 767; and below, 32 Beav. 467.] Evidence-Professional Secresy. There is no presumption of fact to be made against a party who enforces the rule against the disclosure, by his solicitor, of knowledge professionally acquired. Per Lord Chehnsford. Armory v. Delamirie (Strange, 505) does not apply to such a case. In this case a suit had been instituted by the Appellant to set aside a sale of certain estates and other property formerly belonging to him in New South Wales, which sale was made on his behalf by one of the Respondents to the others of them, and the Appellant impeached the fairness of the transaction. The case was heard before the Master of the Rolls, who in September 1863 directed the bill to be dismissed. Evidence had been taken in Sydney, and one of the witnesses was a Mr. Wright, who had acted for some years as the Appellant's solicitor in the colony. Mr. Wright was asked a question, the answer to which was prevented from being given by an objection founded on the fact that he had acquired his knowledge through his professional employment. In commenting upon the case the Master of the Rolls said, " Mr. Wright is asked this question, ' Did Mr. Wentworth ever say anything to you on the subject of any of his dealings with Mr. Mort?' Before the answer was given the Plaintiff interposed with this question, ' Were those communications between me and you professional?' To which Mr. Wright said, ' They were.' And the counsel for Mr. Lloyd of course did not press his question or obtain any answer. The Plaintiff no doubt had a right to prevent Mr. Wright from stating what the Plaintiff had told him about Mr. Mort. It is the client's privilege to prevent the solicitor [590] from divulging confidential communications. But if the client chooses to adopt this conduct, he must be subject to the rule laid down in Armory v. Delamirie (Str. 505), where the keeping back of evidence must be taken most strongly against the person who does so. When I say this I wish to distinguish between the case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
...673, referred to. (43) Webster v. James Chapman & Co., [1989] 3 All E.R. 939, considered. (44) Wentworth v. Lloyd(1864), 10 H.L. Cas. 589; 11 E.R. 1154, dicta of Lord Chelmsford considered. Attorneys-at-Law-professional privilege-privileged documents-client”s communication to attorney reque......
-
Alberta (Minister of Infrastructure) v. Nilsson,
...Shipping Co. v. Uni-Polaris Shipping Co. et al., [2001] 2 W.L.R. 170; 226 N.R. 50 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 117]. Wentworth v. Lloyd (1864), 11 E.R. 1154 (H.L.), refd to. [para. R. v. Zylstra (D.) (1995), 82 O.A.C. 394; 41 C.R.(4th) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123]. McKee v. Alberta (1967), 1......
-
R. v. Meer (J.D.), (2015) 600 A.R. 66
...(S.) (1995), 169 A.R. 81; 97 W.A.C. 81; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33]. Wentworth v. Lloyd (1864), 10 H.L. Cas. 589; 11 E.R. 1154, refd to. [para. 36]. Errico v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co., [1917] 2 W.W.R. 238; 23 B.C.R. 468 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36]. R. v. Alcan......
-
Harmon Cfem Facades (Uk) Ltd (Plaintiff) v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons
...no inferences adverse or otherwise could be drawn since it was well established that it was not permissible to do so: Wentworth v. Lloyd 10 HL Cas 589, and more recently R v Derby Magistrates' Court ex parte B [1995] 4 All ER 523 in which Lord Taylor said at page 537: "The view that the pri......