"In summary, I consider and hold that the Interview Notes, albeit that they record direct communications with RBS's lawyers, comprise information gathering from employees or former employees preparatory to and for the purpose of enabling RBS, through its directors or other persons authorised to do so on its behalf, to seek and receive legal advice. It is clear from the judgment in Three Rivers (No 5) that 'information from an employee stands in the same position as information from an independent agent'… The individuals interviewed were providers of information as employees and not clients: and the Interview Notes were not communications between client and legal adviser. I do not consider that any sufficient basis has been demonstrated for not applying Three Rivers (No 5)."
"In short, all that has really been offered by way of discharging the burden on RBS is that (a) the Interview Notes carry the annotation as to 'mental impressions' described above because (b) they reflect preparation which reveals the lawyers' 'train of inquiry' and because (c) being a note not a transcript, some greater or lesser degree of selection is reflected. This, in my judgment, is not sufficient: the evidence is not such as to substantiate the claim to privilege on the basis of 'lawyers' working papers'. My conclusion is reinforced by the consideration that there is a real difference between reflecting 'a train of inquiry' and reflecting or giving a clue as to the trend of legal advice …".
"… that a corporation would in the usual course only entrust the process of communication with a legal adviser for the purposes of seeking or receiving legal advice to a restricted, and in all probability small, number of persons."
"a corporation is unlikely to authorise an individual to seek and receive legal advice on its behalf to an individual or body which is not its directing mind and will … So I do incline to the view that only communications with an individual capable in law of seeking and receiving legal advice as a duly authorised organ of the corporation should be given the protection of legal advice privilege."