Legal Professional Privilege Scope
1. Meaning and Scope of Legal Professional Privilege
In Singapore, LPP is governed primarily by the Evidence Act (Cap. 97) and common law principles. It covers two main categories:
(a) Legal Advice Privilege
Protects:
Communications between lawyer and client
Made for the purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice
(b) Litigation Privilege
Protects:
Communications involving lawyers, clients, and third parties
Created in anticipation of litigation
2. Key Elements of LPP
To claim privilege, the following must generally be satisfied:
Confidentiality: Communication must be intended to be confidential
Professional relationship: Between a qualified legal adviser and client
Purpose test: Legal advice or litigation must be the dominant purpose
3. Scope of Legal Professional Privilege
(a) What is Protected
Legal opinions
Advice on rights and obligations
Litigation preparation materials
Communications with third-party experts (under litigation privilege)
(b) What is Not Protected
Communications made for illegal purposes (crime/fraud exception)
Purely commercial advice
Facts independent of communication
(c) Duration of Privilege
LPP:
Continues indefinitely
Survives termination of lawyer-client relationship
Even survives death of the client
(d) Waiver of Privilege
Privilege may be waived:
Expressly (disclosure)
Impliedly (conduct inconsistent with confidentiality)
4. Issues Relating to Scope of LPP
(a) Distinction Between Legal and Commercial Advice
Modern lawyers often provide mixed advice.
Issue:
Whether communication is:
Legal (privileged), or
Commercial (not privileged)
(b) “Dominant Purpose” Test
Courts must determine the primary purpose of communication.
Difficulty arises when:
Multiple purposes exist
Litigation is only one of several motives
(c) In-House Counsel Privilege
Communications with in-house lawyers raise concerns:
Are they acting as lawyers or business executives?
Independence may be questioned
(d) Third-Party Communications
Under litigation privilege, third-party communications may be protected.
But:
Only if litigation is reasonably anticipated
Must satisfy dominant purpose test
(e) Cross-Border Communications
Different jurisdictions apply different privilege rules.
This creates:
Conflict of laws issues
Risk of privilege loss in foreign proceedings
(f) Crime-Fraud Exception
Privilege does not apply if communication is made to further illegal acts.
5. Important Case Laws on Legal Professional Privilege
1. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Principle:
Dominant purpose test for litigation privilege.
Held:
Documents must be created primarily for litigation
Clarified scope of litigation privilege in Singapore
2. ARX v Comptroller of Income Tax
Principle:
Scope of legal advice privilege.
Held:
Communications must relate to legal advice
Not all professional communications qualify
3. Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd
Principle:
Privilege in cross-border disputes.
Held:
Recognized importance of privilege in international litigation
Addressed issues of foreign elements
4. Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario
Principle:
Professional conduct and confidentiality.
Relevance:
Emphasizes ethical duties underlying privilege
5. B v Auckland District Law Society
Principle:
Privilege as a fundamental right.
Held:
LPP is a substantive legal right, not merely procedural
6. Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6)
Principle:
Definition of “client” in legal advice privilege.
Held:
Narrow interpretation of “client”
Only specific individuals within an organization qualify
7. Waugh v British Railways Board
Principle:
Dominant purpose test.
Held:
If litigation is not dominant purpose, privilege fails
6. Comparative Observations
Singapore largely follows English common law principles
However, courts emphasize:
Strict application of dominant purpose test
Clear distinction between legal and non-legal advice
7. Conclusion
Legal Professional Privilege in Singapore is a robust and essential doctrine that protects the confidentiality of legal communications. Its scope is broad but carefully controlled through:
The dominant purpose test
Clear categorization of legal vs commercial advice
Limitations such as waiver and crime-fraud exception
The case law demonstrates that while courts strongly uphold privilege, they also prevent its misuse, ensuring a balance between confidentiality and justice.
RELATED Blog
comments