• news-banner

    Expert Insights

A regulator's demand for documents - whose privilege is it anyway...?

A recent decision of the English High Court - A v B, The Financial Reporting Council Limited - deals with an interesting issue of privilege in relation to regulatory investigations and enforcement. Clients of any regulated service providers with whom privileged documents are shared should pay particular attention to the terms of their engagement; they should ensure they are notified of regulatory demands for documentation which may be privileged.    

In this case, The Financial Reporting Council Ltd (the "FRC") (the regulator for auditors in the UK) sought disclosure from the auditor of documents belonging to the auditor's client. Furthermore, the client claimed privilege over those documents. Matters ground to a halt, however, as there was a dispute between the auditor and its client as to whether the documents were, in fact, privileged.  

The court did not grant the relief sought by the client (which basically sought clarification as to who was entitled to exert the privilege in the documents requested by the FRC). It would not be drawn on the specific terms of the declaration sought. However, the court did say that the auditor must form its own view on whether documents are privileged, whether the privilege is that of the auditor or its client. The court said that the statutory duty to disclose documents to its regulator was on the auditor and disclosure could only be refused on the grounds that a document was actually privileged. Mere assertion of privilege by the client was insufficient.

If the client disagrees with the service provider's analysis of privilege, then it will need to apply to court for an injunction preventing the service provider from giving the regulator the document. Whilst the regulator may, of course, ultimately be interested in what the court determines and might join that action, in reality this debate is one to be had between the client and the service provider.        

This case may have wider impact on other areas of regulation such as in FCA-authorised businesses where the FCA utilises its powers to compel a regulated person to disclose documents. The question there would be whether the client's documents are "protected items" under section 413 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. If the client and the service provider do not agree on a document's "protected" or privileged status, this judgment is likely to be "read across" so that the service provider has to make up its own mind whether to exert the client's claim to privilege. If the client disagrees, it will have to apply to court for injunctive relief, seeking to prohibit the service provider from disclosing the document to the FCA.  

The key point to bear in mind as a client in mitigating this risk is to ensure that all of your contracts with regulated service providers include specific wording which protects your privilege. In particular, there should  be an obligation which requires the service provider to notify you should they receive a regulator's request or demand for documents which relate to their engagement with you. That should start a dialogue in which you can ascertain and debate, hopefully in a grown-up manner, which documents might or might not be privileged. If the grown-ups cannot sort this amicably, at least you will then have the opportunity to seek the court's assistance in blocking the regulator's access to the documents by preventing the service provider disclosing it.     

To find out more on how we can help you, please visit our Investigations page.

Our thinking

  • DMCCA: What the UK’s new consumer rules now mean for consumer facing businesses

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Transactions at an undervalue: trusts of land

    Roger Elford

    Insights

  • Ministry of Sound Limited v. The British Foreign Wharf Company Limited (and ors): Balancing terms of a renewal lease with redevelopment potential

    Grace O'Leary

    Quick Reads

  • Advocacy: Lessons from The Mandela Brief for International Arbitration Today

    Jue Jun Lu

    Events

  • Promises and probate: when is “detriment” worth the family farm and what happens when a promise is only relied on for a defined period?

    Matthew Clark

    Insights

  • Bitter taxation pills to swallow, arguably all the more indigestible for those separating or divorcing

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Dewdney Drew writes for the AI Journal on AI actors and the legal hurdles facing a digital revolution

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Farming on a handshake? What happens when things go wrong?

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • LIIARC Tax Investigations Uncovered: Legal Tactics, Courtroom Trends & Strategic Remedies

    Caroline Greenwell

    Events

  • Disputes Over Donuts: AI in Arbitration - Innovation, Risk, and the Road Ahead

    Thomas R. Snider

    Podcasts

  • Law 360 quotes Caroline Greenwell on the BHP dam case and legal risks for UK businesses

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Claudine Morgan writes for The Law Society Gazette on Trump V BBC – what a UK defamation fight would really look like…

    Claudine Morgan

    In the Press

  • India-UAE BIT 2024: What to Expect When You’re Investing

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Harnessing the Law: Equine Impoundment and Fly-Grazing Challenges

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • Appointing a Director

    Stephen Burns

    Insights

  • Trump v BBC? What a UK Defamation Fight Would Really Look Like

    Claudine Morgan

    Quick Reads

  • Navigating Regulation (EU) 2019/880: implementation in Italy and competent authorities for the New European Framework for Importing Works of Arts

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    Quick Reads

  • Energy Arbitration: Navigating Disputes in a Transforming Global Sector

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • AI, Advocacy and Contempt: The QFC Court Draws a Hard Line

    Christopher O'Brien

    Insights

  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Dewdney William Drew on the Getty Images vs Stability AI decision

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

Back to top