- Home
- News & insights
- Insights
- Abolition of the 'Sh…
4 August 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 104 of 103 Insights
Abolition of the 'Shareholder Rule'
- Quick read
In a landmark decision, the Privy Council in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and others [2025] UKPC 34 has abolished the 'Shareholder Rule'. This was an exception to the law of privilege that prevented a company from being able to assert privilege against its shareholders, save in relation to documents that came into existence for the purpose of litigation against a shareholder. This confirms the English High Court's decision last year in Aabar Holdings SARL v Glencore PLC & Ors [2024] EWHC 3046 (Comm) (see our article here), which remains subject to a pending appeal.
Background
The dispute arose out of the amalgamation of two companies within the Jardine Matheson corporate group, to form a company called Jardine Strategic Limited (the 'Company'). As a result of that amalgamation, the shares in one of the original companies were cancelled.
Under Bermuda law, the Company was required to pay fair value for those cancelled shares to shareholders who voted against the amalgamation. Some of those shareholders were not satisfied that the figure offered to them represented fair value for their shares. The shareholders therefore triggered a statutory mechanism under which the Court was required to determine the fair value of those shares.
The shareholders sought disclosure from the Company of documents created prior to the date of amalgamation, including advice that the Company had received in relation to the valuation of the shares. The Company asserted that these documents were protected by legal advice privilege such that the shareholders were not entitled to see those documents. The shareholders, however, sought to rely on the Shareholder Rule to override that privilege.
At first instance, the Chief Justice held that the Company was not entitled to assert legal advice privilege against the shareholders. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Company's subsequent appeal. The issue before the Privy Council was therefore whether the Shareholder Rule formed part of the law of Bermuda and whether it should continue to be recognised in England and Wales.
Decision
The Privy Council unanimously held that the Shareholder Rule forms no part of the law of Bermuda, and that it ought not to continue to be recognised in England and Wales. In doing so, the Privy Council used its power to make a Willers v Joyce direction that its decision should be binding on the English courts.
The Privy Council considered and ultimately rejected three possible bases for the Shareholder Rule as follows:
- The original justification for the rule, which was that shareholders had their own proprietary interest in the company's money from which legal advice is paid for. The Privy Council held that this was inconsistent with the proper analysis of a company as a separate legal person from its members, such that the members have no proprietary interests in the company's assets.
- The more recently articulated justification based on joint interest privilege. This was the argument that the company/shareholder relationship falls within the "joint interest family of relationships" which includes trustee/beneficiary and principal/agent relationships. The Privy Council was alive to the commercial reality that the views of shareholders (as classes and individually) may sharply diverge, and that shareholders are not "a homogeneous block with a single shared interest which may coincide with, or diverge from, the interests of the company". Further, a broadly-based exception from legal advice privilege between a company and its shareholders would discourage companies from obtaining candid legal advice, which is required for directors to be able to make decisions in the company's best interests.
- The narrower justification for the Shareholder Rule which had been advanced by one of the judges in the Court of Appeal, which would require the shareholder to demonstrate a sufficient joint interest on the particular facts of the case. This too was rejected by the Privy Council, on the basis that it would make it impossible for directors to know, when deciding whether to seek legal advice, whether the advice would be protected by privilege against shareholders in the event of subsequent litigation between them.
Implications
The decision brings a definitive end to the Shareholder Rule and resolves prior uncertainty around its status under English law. Directors can now take comfort that legal advice sought on behalf of the company will be protected by privilege and will not be the subject of disclosure in any subsequent litigation with shareholders. Shareholders are now therefore treated the same in relation to privilege as any other stakeholder who may bring proceedings against a company.
In this series
Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents
21 October 2025
by Multiple authors
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
11 June 2025
Wirral Council v Indivior plc: Court of Appeal upholds strike out of opt-in representative action securities claim
30 January 2025
What are the litigation trends in 2025?
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6 December 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14 November 2024
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15 October 2024
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14 December 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13 December 2023
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17 October 2023
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21 July 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10 July 2023
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Breaking the north/south divide?
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19 January 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3 October 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22 September 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26 May 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4 April 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21 July 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21 April 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31 March 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24 February 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20 January 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23 November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16 October 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23 September 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3 December 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8 October 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22 March 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7 April 2022
