This thesis examines the rationale for legal professional privilege (LPP) in relation to corporations, and seeks to identify the optimal scope of a corporate privilege at the beginning of the 21st century. It argues that there is a growing gap between the jurisprudence on LPP and the modern realities of corporate life. Too often courts explain the rationale for the privilege by reference to the needs and behaviour of individuals, and use questionable analogies to justify its extension to corporations. Accordingly, insufficient account is taken of the legal, economic and social realities in which corporations operate. This has resulted in a privilege rule that rests on questionable foundations and is uncertain in scope. Even when the privilege rules are clear, its scope is often out of alignment with its rationale. This is unacceptable because the cost of a corporate privilege is substantial. The thesis argues that while corporations are entitled to a right to prepare for litigation in private as part of the right to fair trial, the case for a corporate advice privilege unconnected with litigation is weak. Large private and public companies already have sufficient incentives to consult lawyers in order to obtain legal advice. Corporate governance rules effectively require directors to get advice on important legal matters affecting the company. Directors of small private corporations, and individual employees of companies, may still need some additional incentive to take advice or talk candidly to corporate counsel in the form of a privilege. The thesis looks at ways of structuring the privilege to protect these groups. Above all, the thesis argues that rules on corporate advice privilege should be formulated in such a way that it helps rather than hinders the goal of increasing corporate compliance.

South African taxpayers currently consult either accountants (i.e., non-legal tax practitioners) or attorneys (i.e., legal tax practitioners) in order to acquire tax advice. The qualitative approach adopted in carrying out this study entails the examination of the differing rights applicable to a taxpayer depending on which adviser he decides to approach for tax advice. The concept of legal professional privilege is a common law right which has only ever been applicable to members of the legal profession. However, due to the recent regulation of tax practitioners and the modernisation of the way taxpayers conduct their financial affairs in approaching both attorneys and accountants for tax advice it seems appropriate that this privilege should be extended beyond the legal profession. Upon consideration of the history and requirements of this privilege it is determined that this privilege is amenable to extension. Constitutional principles, with regard to the right to privacy and the right to equality in relation to the taxpayer obtaining the tax advice, are infringed as a result of the limitation imposed whereby only tax advice obtained from an attorney is protected. Lastly, the current legislative stances adopted by foreign jurisdictions, that currently permit or are considering permitting legal professional privilege to apply to tax advice obtained from non-legal tax practitioners illustrate that there is a global movement toward removing the current restrictions on this principle. This has been accomplished by countries such as the United States of America and New Zealand by way of introduction of statutory provisions that allow for tax advice issued by non-legal tax practitioners to be protected from disclosure to the revenue authorities in the respective countries. Based on the research conducted it is concluded that South Africa should therefore follow suit and create a separate statutory provision to protect tax advice obtained from non-legal tax practitioners. / Dissertation (Mcom)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Taxation / unrestricted

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / In the past, witness statements obtained by or on behalf of a party to a criminal case were protected, from disclosure to the opponent, by privilege. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate whether such claims to privilege are justified and whether openness before and during the trial is not perhaps more important to the interests of justice. The disclosure of witness statements to the defence is a commonly recognized practice all over the world. This practice enhances openness before and during the criminal trial. The arguments against and in favor of such a practice are many, but investigation into these has shown that it is in the interests of justice to disclose such statements to the defence, rather than to deny access. Furthermore, the writer investigates whether it would be in the interests of justice to compel the defence to assist the court in determining the truth. / In die verlede is getuieverklarings wat deur of ten behoewe van 'n party tot 'n strafsaak bekom is deur privilegie beskerm, teen openbaarmaking aan die teenstander. Verskeie argumente is aangevoer om die beroep op getuieverklaring privilegie te regverdig. Die doel van hierdie verhandeling is om ondersoek in te stel of sulke aansprake geregverdig is en of openheid voor en gedurende die verhoor nie meer belangrik vir die belang van geregtigheid is nie. Die openbaarmaking van getuieverklarings aan die verdediging is 'n algemeen erkende praktyk regoor die wereld. Hierdie praktyk bevorder openheid voor en tydens die strafverhoor. Die argumente vir en teen so 'n praktyk is baie en 'n ondersoek daarvan dui daarop dat dit in die belang van geregtigheid is om sulke verklarings aan die verdediging te openbaar, eerder as om toegang daartoe te weier. Die vraag is nou of dit nie ook in die belang van geregtigheid is dat die verdediging verplig word om die hof by te staan om die waarheid vas te stel nie. Ten slotte het die skrywer aan die hand gedoen dat partye tot 'n straf saak getuieverklarings gelyktydig voor die verhoor uitruil en ondersoek ingestel of so 'n praktyk in ooreenstemming met die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 kan wees. / Law / LL.M.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / In the past, witness statements obtained by or on behalf of a party to a criminal case were protected, from disclosure to the opponent, by privilege. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate whether such claims to privilege are justified and whether openness before and during the trial is not perhaps more important to the interests of justice. The disclosure of witness statements to the defence is a commonly recognized practice all over the world. This practice enhances openness before and during the criminal trial. The arguments against and in favor of such a practice are many, but investigation into these has shown that it is in the interests of justice to disclose such statements to the defence, rather than to deny access. Furthermore, the writer investigates whether it would be in the interests of justice to compel the defence to assist the court in determining the truth. / In die verlede is getuieverklarings wat deur of ten behoewe van 'n party tot 'n strafsaak bekom is deur privilegie beskerm, teen openbaarmaking aan die teenstander. Verskeie argumente is aangevoer om die beroep op getuieverklaring privilegie te regverdig. Die doel van hierdie verhandeling is om ondersoek in te stel of sulke aansprake geregverdig is en of openheid voor en gedurende die verhoor nie meer belangrik vir die belang van geregtigheid is nie. Die openbaarmaking van getuieverklarings aan die verdediging is 'n algemeen erkende praktyk regoor die wereld. Hierdie praktyk bevorder openheid voor en tydens die strafverhoor. Die argumente vir en teen so 'n praktyk is baie en 'n ondersoek daarvan dui daarop dat dit in die belang van geregtigheid is om sulke verklarings aan die verdediging te openbaar, eerder as om toegang daartoe te weier. Die vraag is nou of dit nie ook in die belang van geregtigheid is dat die verdediging verplig word om die hof by te staan om die waarheid vas te stel nie. Ten slotte het die skrywer aan die hand gedoen dat partye tot 'n straf saak getuieverklarings gelyktydig voor die verhoor uitruil en ondersoek ingestel of so 'n praktyk in ooreenstemming met die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 kan wees. / Law / LL.M.