Legal advice privilege was restored to its original parameters this week as the House of Lords dismissed a controversial Court of Appeal decision in the Three Rivers case (see [2004] Gazette, 4 March, 1). The Lords moved swiftly to overturn the earlier ruling that legal advice privilege should only apply to advice relating to 'legal rights and obligations' - as opposed to presentational advice.


At the end of a four-day hearing last week, Lord Scott said the Bank of England's appeal against the Court of Appeal decision would be allowed, with reasons expected to be given in September.


The Law Society, Bar Council and Attorney-General's office, which had all submitted written arguments to the court in strong support of legal advice privilege, were given permission to provide further submissions relating to arguments raised during the hearing.


Colin Passmore, a partner at City firm Simmons & Simmons who contributed to the Law Society's earlier submission, said: 'I am hopeful from the comments made by the House of Lords that they will try to give some guidance to the profession over and above the points in the appeal - the fact that they have invited further submissions suggests that they will look at the issue sympathetically.' He added: 'The decision to allow the appeal has overturned the Court of Appeal's ruling relating to presentational advice, but it is still not clear how the House of Lords will deal with the issue of who is the client in the corporate context.'


The case concerned communications between City firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and employees within the Bank of England dealing with the Bingham inquiry into the collapse of bank BCCI in the 1990s.


Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'The Law Society is pleased with the result. However, much of the importance of the case to solicitors and their clients will lie in the detailed reasons their Lordships give when they hand down their judgment in the autumn.'