BAT Admits Longstanding Fear of Health Lawsuits

British American Tobacco was readying itself to fend off litigation over the health effects of smoking as early as the mid-1980s, its lawyers admitted yesterday, as they sought to prevent a former legal adviser from being forced to give evidence in a $290bn (£160bn) American lawsuit.

BAT is contesting a December high court judgment which called for its former adviser, Andrew Foyle, a senior partner at London law firm Lovells, to be questioned about "document retention policies" at the firm.

Andrew Howard, BAT's barrister, argued in the court of appeal that, because the tobacco firm was already nervous about being sued when Mr Foyle was hired, his communications with it were covered by client privilege and he should not be forced to answer questions about them.

"Lovells didn't have any other role: their purpose in becoming involved was because of the apprehension of claims and of demands for documents," he said.

If Mr Foyle answered any questions about his role at BAT, he said, "by doing so he will risk divulging what he has learned as a result of confidential communications".

The US government would like to speak to Mr Foyle in what is thought to be the largest claim for compensation to be filed in the US courts. He is not accused of wrongdoing, but prosecutors believe he could shed light on the document retention programme at BAT.

In evidence submitted by the US when it first made the request to the English courts to question Mr Foyle, he is cited as helping BAT to organise a "spring clean" of its documents to protect itself against litigation - although it subsequently promised him immunity from prosecution as a result of anything he told the prosecutors.

BAT's American subsidiary, Brown & Williamson, is one of the defendants in the massive damages case, together with several other tobacco firms including Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. They are accused of systematically suppressing evidence on the health effects of smoking since as long ago as 1953.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick ruled in December that Mr Foyle could be asked limited questions on the case at a hearing in Britain. Both BAT and Mr Foyle are appealing against that decision.

The case is expected to conclude today.