R.

(on the application of Morgan Grenfell &

Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income
Tax
Also known as:
R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p.
Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd
R. v Special Commissioners of Income Tax
Ex p. Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd
House of Lords
16 May 2002

Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2002] UKHL 21; [2003] 1 A.C. 563; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1299; [2002] 3 All E.R. 1; [2002] S.T.C.
786; [2002] H.R.L.R. 42; 74 T.C. 511; [2002] B.T.C. 223; 4 I.T.L. Rep. 809; [2002] S.T.I. 806;
(2002) 99(25) L.S.G. 35; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 126; [2002] N.P.C. 70; Times, May 20,
2002Independent, May 21, 2002Official Transcript

Case Digest
Subject: Tax
Keywords: Disclosure; Documents; Legal professional privilege; Notices; Tax inspectors
Summary: The Taxes Management Act 1970 s.20(1) could not be construed as implying that a
tax inspector could, by the issue of a notice, require the disclosure of documents which were
subject to legal professional privilege.
Abstract: M, a bank, appealed against the dismissal of its appeal ([2001] EWCA Civ 329,
[2002] 2 W.L.R. 255) following the refusal of its application for judicial review ([2001] 1 All

E.R. 535) of a decision of a Special Commissioner. The Commissioner had approved a tax
inspector's issue of a notice pursuant to the Taxes Management Act 1970 s.20(1) requiring M to
disclose documents relating to a tax avoidance scheme that it had operated for its customers. M
contended that the documents, which contained the advice given to M by counsel as to the
potential for success of the scheme, were protected by legal professional privilege. The Revenue
maintained that if the intention of Parliament in passing the 1970 Act had been to preserve
privilege generally then it would not have enacted specific provisions that preserved the
fundamental rights of the taxpayer, including privilege in relation to documents in the hands of
lawyers.
Held, allowing the appeal and quashing the notice, that there was no express reference in s.20(1)
of the Act to legal professional privilege and that section could not be construed as necessarily
implying that a tax inspector could, by the issue of a notice, require the disclosure of documents
which were subject to legal professional privilege, R. v Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex p. Simms [2000] 2 A.C. 115 applied. There were specific safeguards, totally
distinct from legal professional privilege, incorporated into other sections of the Act that meant
that it was impossible to imply that legal professional privilege was intended to be excluded from
the measures designed to protect taxpayers, Parry-Jones v Law Society [1969] 1 Ch. 1 applied.
Judge: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead; Lord Hoffmann; Lord Hope of Craighead; Lord Hobhouse
of Woodborough; Lord Scott of Foscote
Counsel: For MG: David Pannick Q.C., Giles Goodfellow and Javan Herberg. For the
Commissioners: Timothy Brennan Q.C., Ingrid Simler and Diya Sen Gupta
Solicitor: For MG: Slaughter & May. For the Commissioners: Inland Revenue Solicitor

Appellate History
Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
R. (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income
Tax
[2001] 1 All E.R. 535; [2000] S.T.C. 965; [2000] S.T.I. 1609; (2000) 97(48) L.S.G. 37; (2000)
150 N.L.J. 1717; Times, November 22, 2000; Official Transcript
Affirmed by
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
R. (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income
Tax
[2001] EWCA Civ 329; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 255; [2002] 1 All E.R. 776; [2001] S.T.C. 497; [2001]
S.T.I. 281; (2001) 98(18) L.S.G. 45; [2000] N.P.C. 54; Times, April 17, 2001; Independent,
March 15, 2001; Official Transcript
Reversed by

House of Lords
R. (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income
Tax