• news-banner

    Expert Insights

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

min read

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

  • IBA Annual Conference 2026

    Jean-Baptiste Beauvoir-Planson

    Events

  • ‘Sharenting’ and consent – UAE ruling on posting photos of children online

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • ‘Don’t Lose Ur Head’…But It Might Lose You Money: Conduct in the No-Fault Divorce Era

    Cara Fung

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Claudine Morgan, Hannah Gornall and Ellen Roberts write in New Law Journal about the implications of a landmark anti-SLAPP judgment

    Claudine Morgan

    In the Press

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

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

    min read
  • Affidavits in International Litigation - Lessons for Trust Companies from a Recent Geneva Judgment

    Bruno Ledrappier

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • The Increased Expedited Procedure Threshold under the 2026 ICC Rules: What Does It Mean for Mid-Value Construction Disputes in the UAE?

    Glenn Bull

    Insights

    min read
  • The Next Frontier? Follow On Claims and the Future of Loss of Chance Litigation in International Sports

    Daniel McDonagh

    Events

    min read
  • Case No. 9. Can an arbitration clause be extended to a non-signatory party, and what are the relevant factors?

    Annapaola Negri-Clementi

    Insights

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, as Liquidator of Awal Bank BSC(c) (In Liquidation), welcomes Bahraini Court judgment upholding liquidator’s rejection of US$2.8 billion of claims and confirming debts owing to Awal Bank of US$2.56 billion

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    News

    min read
  • SLAPPs, Scrolls & Silencing: Media Law Under the Spotlight

    Claudine Morgan

    Events

    min read
  • Bridging East and West: Resolving China Related Disputes in a Global Era

    Jue Jun Lu

    Events

    min read
  • New Corporate Liability for criminal offences committed by Senior Managers: Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026

    Rachel Warren

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Forum Wars or Forum Steering? Global licence determinations, cross border complexities, ADR and the next stage of FRAND Disputes

    Robert Lundie Smith

    Events

    min read
  • New 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration: what’s changed and what it means

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

    min read
  • Steering the Ship: Navigating the Seas of Trust Applications without Capsizing into Hostile Litigation

    Robert Avis

    Events

    min read
  • The Dubai Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal Continues to Define the Boundaries of DIFC and Onshore Dubai Court Jurisdiction in Arbitral Award Recognition and Enforcement

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

    min read
  • Disputes Over Donuts: Spotlight on the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026

    Thomas R. Snider

    Podcasts

  • Charles Russell Speechlys moves offices in Milan following consistent growth of Italian practice

    Michael Lingens

    News

    min read
  • After You Leave: Navigating Non-Competes and Non-Solicitation Under Swiss Law

    Remo Wagner

    Quick Reads

    min read
Back to top