{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Clarke Gittens Farmer","Gillian Clarke"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien","index":1,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Barbados"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes, Section 104 of the Evidence Act Cap. 121 provides for client legal privilege in respect of legal advice and litigation.\nLegal Advice Privilege\n\nSection 104(1) Evidence Act states that where, on objection by a client the court finds that the adducing of evidence would involve a confidential communication made between the client and his attorney-at-law or attorneys-at-law or their employees or agents, the contents of a document, whether delivered or not, that was prepared by the client or his attorney-at-law for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice to the client, the court shall direct that the evidence not be adduced.\nLitigation privilege\n\nSection 104(2) Evidence Act states that where, on objection by a client the court finds that the adducing of evidence would involve a confidential communication made between the client and his attorney-at-law or attorneys-at-law or their employees or agents, these parties and some other person or the employees or agents of the client, the contents of a document, whether delivered or not, that was prepared by the client or his attorney-at-law, that was made or prepared for the dominant purpose of providing or receiving professional legal services in relation to a legal or administrative proceeding, or an anticipated or pending administrative or legal proceeding, in which the client is nor may be a party, the court shall direct that the evidence not be adduced.\n\n\n \n"]
["If the ACP is not recognized in your jurisdiction, are there rules of professional confidentiality or other rules that would enable a lawyer or a client to withhold attorney-client communications or work product prepared by counsel from disclosure in a civil proceeding?\n\nNote: This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.","N/A\n"]
["Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?","There is no distinction made between civil and criminal proceedings.\nGovernment Authorities may not require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product.\n\n\n \n"]
["In the corporate context, what test is applied to determine who within a corporation is considered the client for the purposes of the ACP?  (e.g., in the U.S.: the Upjohn approach, control group test, etc.)","Section 103 of the Evidence Act states that “client” includes an employee or agent of a client.\nThe test is that of authorization to disclose pursuant to Section 105 (7) of the Evidence Act.\n\n\n \n"]
["Is in-house counsel expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel in order to establish that privilege applies to in-house counsel’s communications?","There is no distinction in the burden upon in-house counsel and outside counsel.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","N/A\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","N/A\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes, the common interest doctrine is recognized under section 105 (10) of the Evidence Act\n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","Section 105(10) Evidence Act states that a disclosure by a client of an attorney-at-law to a person who is a client of the same attorney-at-law shall not be taken to be disclosure for the purposes of subsection (9) if the disclosure concerns a matter in relation to which the attorney-at-law is providing or is to provide legal services to both of them\nSection 105(9) Evidence Act refers to the disclosure of evidence by express or implied consent\n\n\n \n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","There is no requirement for a common interest agreement, whether in writing or otherwise.\n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","Litigation funding is not permitted pursuant to any legislation, and therefore is subject to the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. (In re TREPCA MINES LTD. (No. 2). [No.00510 of 1957.] [1963] Ch. 199 and \nClico Investment Bank Ltd v Transport Marine Enterprises Ltd TT 2003 HC 115)\n\n\n \n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","N/A\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?"," Section 105(12) and 105(13) of the Evidence Act Cap.121 articulates the crime-fraud exception. \n\n Section 105(12) states that section 104 does not prevent the adducing of evidence of     \n\n \n\t a communication made or a document prepared in furtherance of the commission of\n\t \n\t\t an offense, or \n\t\t an act that renders a person liable to a civil penalty, or \n\t \n\t \n\t a communication or a document that the client knew or ought reasonably to have known was made or prepared in furtherance of deliberate abuse of a power conferred by or under an enactment \n \n\n Section 105(13) states that for the purposes of subsection (12), where \n\n \n\t the commission of the offense or act, or the abuse of power, is a fact in issue; and  \n\t there are reasonable grounds for finding that\n\t \n\t\t the offense, act, or the abuse of power, was committed, and \n\t\t the communication was made or document prepared in furtherance of the commission of the offense, act or the abuse of power the court may find that the communication was so made or the document so prepared respectively. \n\t \n\t \n \n"]
["Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege (doctrine that protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial)"]
["Is there a statute or rule that protects information obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure in legal proceedings?  (In the U.S.:  What state rule is your jurisdiction’s analog to FRCP 26(b)(3)?)"," Section 104(2) of the Evidence Act states that  \nWhere, on objection by a client, the court finds that the adducing of evidence would result in the disclosure of  \n\n \n\t A confidential communication between\n\t \n\t\t the client and his attorney-at-law or attorneys-at-law, or employees or agents of such attorneys-at-law \n\t\t the client and his attorney-at-law or attorneys-at-law, or employees or agents of such attorneys-at-law and some other person, or \n\t\t the employees or agents of the client, or \n\t \n\t \n\t the contents of a document, whether delivered or not, that was prepared by the client or his attorney-at-law, that was made or prepared for the dominant purpose of providing or receiving professional legal services in relation to a legal or administrative proceeding, or an anticipated or pending administrative or legal proceeding, in which the client is or maybe a party, the client shall direct that the evidence not be adduced. \n \n\n Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act also states where, by virtue of section 104, evidence of the contents of a document may not be adduced, the court shall not give a direction under section 31(1) (purposes of memory refreshing) to require the production of the document. \n  \n"]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?"," \n\t Confidential communication or the contents of a document \n\t Made or prepared for the dominant purpose of providing or receiving professional legal services \n\t Relating to legal or administrative proceeding, or an anticipated or pending administrative or legal proceeding \n\t  \n \n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","Although in Barbados there is no explicit accountant-client privilege, Section 106(1) of the Evidence Act provides a broad provision which allows for an interested person in relation to a confidential communication or a confidential document to apply to the court not to adduce the communication or document. The court has the discretion not to adduce the evidence where the likelihood of harm to an interested person, harm to the relationship in the course of which the confidential communication was made or the confidential document prepared, or harm to relationships of the kind concerned together with the extent of that harm, outweigh the desirability of admitting the evidence.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","Yes, pursuant to Practice Direction No.1 of 2019 and No.2 of 2019 Court-Annexed Mediation made pursuant to Part 4.2(2) of the Supreme Court of Barbados (Civil Procedure) Rules 2008 (\n“the CPR”) supplementing Part 25.1 of those rules and made pursuant to Section 268 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 2001 Cap 116A. respectively, the requirement is that of confidentiality and without prejudice privilege. \nSpecifically, any communication made in the course of and relating to the subject matter of Mediation, and made in the presence of the Mediator by a party, the Mediator or other party shall be Confidential, and shall not be subject to disclosure in any circumstances (save and except the Mediator’s ethical responsibility to break confidentiality if he/she suspects another person may be in danger of harm) and in particular in any judicial or administrative proceedings by the Parties.\n\n\n \n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","Yes. There are two aspects of settlement negotiation privilege recognized in Barbados. \nFirst, section 110 (1) Evidence Act states that evidence may not be adduced of a communication made between persons in dispute, or between one or more persons in dispute and a third party, being a communication made in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute, or (b) a document that has been prepared in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of a dispute, whether or not the document has been delivered.\nSecondly, the without prejudice provision under Part 35 Supreme Court Civil Proceedings Rules (CPR) Offers to Settle provides that one party may make an offer to another party but reserve the right to make the terms of the offer known to the court after judgment is given with regard to (a) the allocation of the costs of the proceedings; and (b) the question of interest on damages. (Rule 35.3 CPR) In such cases, neither the fact nor the amount of the offeror of any payment into court in support of the offer may be communicated to the court until after all questions relating to liability and the amount of money to be awarded, other than costs and interest, have been decided. (Rule 35.4 CPR)\n\n\n \n"]