Privilege-log redaction is the removal of personal data from the index that describes withheld items. CPR 31.19(3) requires you to state in writing the grounds for withholding inspection, without giving away the privileged content itself. anonym.plus runs on your device, so the description stays testable while third-party names in the log come out.
When this applies
Such an index must describe withheld documents without waiving the claim, whether the ground is legal advice privilege or litigation privilege — the dominant-purpose test set out in Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521. Its author, recipient, and subject fields often carry names you must mask before the log itself is shared with the other side or a costs judge.
How anonym.plus handles it
- Load the list into anonym.plus on your device.
- The tool scans author, recipient, and description fields.
- It flags names, dates, and contacts in each row.
- Confirm the flags; keep the stated basis text intact.
- Replace or mask the confirmed PII.
- Save the clean index with no network call.
What you need to provide
- The list as XLSX, CSV, DOCX, or PDF.
- An operator: Mask for partial names, Replace for aliases.
- Optional steady labels so one person maps to one alias.
PII entity types detected
| Category | anonym.plus entity type | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Names | PERSON | From: J. Marsh → [AUTHOR] |
| Names | PERSON | To: Dr. Linton → [RECIPIENT] |
| Dates | DATE_TIME | Sent 04/02 → [DATE] |
| Contact | EMAIL_ADDRESS | j.marsh@firm.co.uk → [EMAIL] |
| Identifiers | UK_NINO | NINO in subject → [NINO] |
| Document IDs | PERSON | Ref PRIV-0042 → [DOC_ID] |
Compliance achieved
- Supports the description duty in CPR 31.19(3) without exposing the underlying privileged content.
- Keeps the litigation-privilege dominant-purpose test from Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521 intact on each row.
- If the claim is challenged, CPR 31.19(6) lets the court inspect the document itself to decide — the log stays the neutral index, not the evidence.
- Offline work protects litigation work-product from a vendor disclosure.
Anonymise privilege logs offline — see plans & start free →
Limitations & cautions
Each row must still describe its item enough to test the claim. Mask names, but do not strip so much that the basis becomes vague. Over-redaction can itself draw a challenge, so review every entry.
Frequently asked questions
Will masking names waive the claim?
No. CPR 31.19(3) asks you to state the grounds for withholding, not to name every person involved. Masking PII while keeping the stated basis keeps the entry testable and the claim intact.
Can one person map to a steady alias across rows?
Yes. A name map gives each person one alias, so the index reads consistently without real names, which matters most where the same solicitor or custodian appears across dozens of entries.
What happens if the other side challenges an entry?
CPR 31.19(6) lets the court inspect the document itself, without notice to the other party, to decide whether the privilege claim holds. Your log only needs to be clear enough to let the court test it, not to win the argument on its own.