We are currently experiencing problems with our phone system which means some calls to us are not getting through. If you can’t get through to us, please email us at info@ortolan.com and we’ll get right back to you.


Court of Appeal confirms dominant purpose test for legal advice privilege

In the latest decision on Privilege the Court of Appeal has clarified that the dominant purpose test must be applied in order to establish legal advice privilege (“LAP”).

The dominant purpose test has long been understood to be a prerequisite to litigation privilege but the decision in Civil Aviation Authority v R Jet2.com Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 35 has confirmed that this same test also applies to LAP.  The test requires that a communication must be for the dominant purpose of obtaining information or advice.

The Case

In this case, the Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”), as the UK regulator of the aviation industry, issued a press release criticising Jet2’s refusal to sign up to an alternative dispute resolution programme for the resolution of consumer complaints.  Jet2 brought judicial review proceedings against the CAA to challenge the decision to publish the correspondence - it considered that the CAA had an ulterior motive in releasing such communications.  Jet2 made a subsequent application for disclosure of some documents held by the CAA which included drafts of a letter sent by the CAA to Jet2 and all discussions surrounding the draft.  The CAA opposed the application claiming that the documents were subject to LAP.

The judge at first instance held that, as obtaining legal advice would need to have been the dominant purpose of these documents, they were not covered by LAP and consequently should be disclosed.  The CAA appealed the decision. 

The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that any party claiming LAP is required to demonstrate that the relevant document or communication was created or sent for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.  In this case the CAA could not meet this test and the documents were disclosable.


This case has made it clear that simply sending a communication to a lawyer, as part of a multi-addressee communication, is unlikely to be sufficient if the dominant purpose of the communication is to seek a commercial view rather than to obtain legal advice.  The court also confirmed where an email contains an attachment it is necessary to consider all documents independently of the others, so even if an email is privileged its attachment(s) might not be.

At first blush it appears that this case has created a narrowing of LAP however the Court of Appeal noted that a broad approach will be taken to the “continuum of communications” between a client and a lawyer and that legal advice includes not only advice on the application of the law but also the consideration of circumstances from a legal perspective.  Notwithstanding this, in order to maintain the strongest position, it is advisable that legal and commercial communications should be kept separately so as to avoid the need for the court to consider whether the legal and non-legal content can be severed which of course inevitably leaves a risk that the court would find that the non-legal context dominates the communication.

Posted on 4 March, 2020 by Ortolan

Get in Touch

If you would like to know more about Ortolan Legal and how we can help you reduce your ongoing recruitment costs, get in touch!

Email us now

   Or call 020 3743 0600

Unipart Group has used Ortolan Legal’s services to supplement our in-house legal team for a number of years. We keep coming back to them because their unique combination of experienced, high quality lawyers at extremely cost-effective rates sets them apart from other law firms. It also has to be said that their team are personable, highly commercial and very responsive. I would recommend them without reservation.

Richard Collins, Group Legal Director Unipart
See All
Receive news & updates from Ortolan Legal

Meet the Team

  • Nick Benson Nick Benson I qualified as a commercial and corporate solicitor…
  • Liz Delgado Liz Delgado I qualified as a solicitor in 1995 after studying…
  • Jude Mladek Jude Mladek I graduated with a law degree in 1998 and after…