High Court Broadens Legal Advice Privilege to Cover Internal Client Documents
Summary
The High Court has ruled in Aabar Holdings SARL & Ors v Glencore PLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm) that legal advice privilege extends to internal documents created by clients where the dominant purpose is to seek legal advice, even if those documents would never be sent to a lawyer. Mr Justice Picken held that intra-client documents identifying issues for legal advice should attract privilege, treating them as the 'mirror image' of a lawyer's working papers. The judge also confirmed that the so-called 'shareholder rule' preventing companies from claiming privilege against their own shareholders should be regarded as no longer existing.
What changed
The High Court in Aabar Holdings SARL & Ors v Glencore PLC & Ors has extended legal advice privilege to cover intra-client documents whose dominant purpose is to seek legal advice, even where those documents would not be sent to a lawyer. The judge held that such documents are the 'mirror image' of a lawyer's working papers and should be treated identically for privilege purposes. This fills a gap left by the 2003 Three Rivers (No5) Court of Appeal authority, which did not directly address this situation. The judge also confirmed that the 'shareholder rule' should be considered abolished.
For companies involved in litigation or regulatory investigations, internal documents such as pre-meeting notes, internal briefings, and communications between client group members preparing for legal meetings may now attract privilege. Legal professionals should advise clients on documenting the dominant purpose of such materials and ensure consistent privilege claims for internal and external communications.
Archived snapshot
Apr 18, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
High Court broadens scope of legal advice privilege
17 April 2026 Posted by Neil Rose
Picken: Lawyers and clients’ working papers should be treated the same
The High Court has widened legal advice privilege to all internal documents created by the client where the dominant purpose is to seek legal advice, even if they would not actually be sent to a lawyer.
Mr Justice Picken said that given a lawyer’s working papers were the subject of privilege, “it is difficult to see why what are, in effect, a client’s working papers should not also attract such privilege”.
They were “the mirror image of each other” and so should be treated in the same way for the purposes of legal advice privilege.
In Aabar Holdings SARL & Ors v Glencore PLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm), the judge held that the key 2003 Court of Appeal authority of Three Rivers (No5) did not address this situation, and that no authority both before and after it, or academic commentary, prevented the assertion of a claim to privilege for intra-client documents.
The claimant accepted that privilege applied to intra-client documents which evidenced the substance of privileged communications or were intended to be communication between client and solicitor but were not sent.
Given that, Picken J said, it “would make no sense for legal advice privilege not to be available in respect of intra-client documents whose dominant purpose is to identify an issue on which the client proposes to seek advice from a lawyer but at a time at which advice has not yet been sought from the lawyer in relation to the issue identified”.
He went on: “There can be no distinction in principle between, on the one hand, an engagement or instruction letter that identifies the issue on which legal advice will be sought and, on the other hand, another document or communication created by the client which identifies the issue on which legal advice will be sought.”
It would also not make sense for privilege not to apply to intra-client documents “whose dominant purpose is to identify facts that the client proposes to communicate to a lawyer for the purpose of seeking legal advice, but where the document itself is not intended to be sent to the lawyer”.
The judge said: “An example might be a client, the day before he or she is due to meet his lawyer for the first time, writing himself or herself a memorandum with notes for the meeting.
“Another example might be one member of the client group, who will not be attending the meeting with the lawyer, emailing another member of the client group with information or thoughts in preparation for the meeting.”
A briefing from Brick Court Chambers – whose members, Tony Singla KC, Kyle Lawson and Jacob Rabinowitz, instructed by Clifford Chance, acted for the defendants – noted that the judgment did not directly address the other well-known issue raised by Three Rivers (No5), namely which employees of a company counted as ‘the client’ for the purposes of a claim to legal advice privilege.
“In SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006, the Court of Appeal indicated that that issue would need to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court in an appropriate future case,” it noted.
In an earlier ruling in this case, Picken J held that the so-called ‘shareholder rule’ – preventing a company from claiming privilege against its own shareholders – should be regarded as no longer existing.
Sign up to our free e-newsletter
Leave a Comment
By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.
Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *
Email *
Comment *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Blog
17 April 2026
How you respond to mistakes matters more than the mistakes themselves
Mistakes in legal practice are inevitable. What truly differentiates well-run firms from those that stumble is not whether mistakes occur, but how they are handled when they do.
Read More More Blogs 15 April 2026
Litigation finance is not one product. It’s a strategy
Across the consumer claims market, litigation finance has developed into a broader set of funding options that can support different stages of a case.
Read More More Blogs 13 April 2026
The best legal AI doesn’t replace rules-based engines – it completes them
There is a belief circulating in legal tech that AI can solve everything – that LLMs are universally superior to what came before. It is not always true, however.
Upcoming Webinars
- 21/04/2026 ### Leasehold dwellings- legislative update and the draft Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Bill
- 22/04/2026 ### Cryptocurrency – the essential guide for private client practitioners
22/04/2026
An introduction to tax and estate planning
Conferences
- ### Housing Condition Conference 2026
Claims Futures Conference 2026
Related News
Collective action “more for benefit of lawyers and funders”
Prison sentence for former executor who refused law firm’s requests
Declarations on AI in witness statements “would reduce efficiency”
Law Society trains focus on SRA for Mazur supervision guidance
Top City firm ordered to pay wasted costs over instruction error
Features
Flat roof developments: legal disputes and strategic representation
- ### Mazur – a problem 300 years in the making
- ### When the dust doesn’t settle: Enforcement in housing disrepair claims
Associate News
- ### Unlocking Growth: How SME law firms can thrive through referrals
- ### Motor finance redress: data, AML and early stage claim identification
- ### iManage appoints Ryan Begin and David Zember to expand global partner strategy and technology ecosystem
- ### AI in law: cutting through the noise
- ### iManage to unveil major platform advancement at ConnectLive 2026
- ### The Property Firm’s Guide to Mastering Compliance in 2026
- ### tmGroup and Redbrick announce tmQuote tool integration to help conveyancers win more instructions, faster More Stories ## Associates
#### Allianz Legal Protection #### Financial & Legal #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### Bundledocs #### Linetime #### Express Solicitors #### Fenchurch Legal #### SOS Legal #### Verisk #### Valid8 IP #### Checkboard #### Brabners #### Perfect Portal #### CEL Solicitors #### tmGroup #### National Claims #### iCOFA #### SearchFlow #### Dye & Durham #### National Accident Helpline #### Clio #### R&R Solutions #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### Access Legal #### Acquira Professional Services #### Litera #### LPG #### National Accident Law #### Landmark Information Group #### Fraser and Fraser #### BigHand #### InfoTrack #### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### Actionstep #### Osprey Approach #### Stridon #### Auto Claims Assist #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### Temple Legal Protection #### Nexa Law #### Conscious Solutions #### Lockton Companies LLP #### ARAG #### OneSearch Direct #### AxiaFunder #### VinciWorks #### Qanooni #### Document Direct #### Search Acumen #### Recovery First Limited #### LEAP Legal Software #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### OneAdvanced #### DG Legal #### Legmark #### DR Solicitors #### O'Connors
Sign-up for our e‑newsletter
Get our news roundup every Friday.
Email * Sign-up here Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Legal Futures.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.