Legal advice privilege and the corporate client

This article considers the question of which corporate communications attract legal advice privilege. Specifically, it assesses the implications of adopting, on the one hand, a narrow 'control group' test and, on the other, a broad 'dominant purpose' test for determining the scope of privileged communications. The Court of Appeal's decision in Three Rivers DC v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 5) is compared with approaches adopted in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. It is concluded that both tests have identifiable shortcomings. However, in light of the human rights implications of applying a broad test, it may be preferable to opt for a restrictive approach to identifying the corporate client in this context.