Judgment here.
LEAPING IN
-
*Now I know that there’s lots of nonsense talked about women proposing to
men on 29th February. I’ve even heard that traditionally if the man refuses
the...
13 hours ago
1 comments:
When stating that a party who shows 'Hildebrand' documents to their solicitor may be prevented from continuing to instruct that solicitor the Court of Appeal ignored the right of the citizen to seek and be given legal advice. If we don't see the documents how is the client going to get advice on whether they are or are not capable of attracting the protection of the law of confidentiality.
In addition, having been so trenchant in their view that Mr Imerman was entitled to have his expectation of confidence upheld, why did they direct that the documents should go to his solicitors and not to him. Surely the logic of their decision was that he and he alone had the right to decide who should see his documents. There is nothing in the judgement which suggests he had agreed to his solicitors seeing the documents so the decision looks a little half baked.
Post a Comment