• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

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.      

A v B, The Financial Reporting Council Limited [2020] EWHC 1491 (Ch), 2020 WL 03256831

Our thinking

  • Asset Tracing in England and Wales: Legal Tools and Public Resources

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • How to respond to a dawn raid: A guide to dawn raids in financial crime investigations

    Emilie Brammer

    Insights

  • Dawn raids in Switzerland: Best practices under the revised criminal procedure code

    Pierre Bydzovsky

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes two new Dispute Resolution Partners in Singapore

    Stewart Hey

    News

  • Corporate liability and penalties under The Bribery Act 2010

    Rhys Novak

    Insights

  • Swiss Anti-Corruption Laws: A Guide to Bribery Offences, Compliance, and Penalties

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • AML in decentralized finance and traditional finance

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • Understanding Contempt of Court in Swiss Law: Key Provisions and Penalties

    Remo Wagner

    Insights

  • Understanding Civil and Criminal Remedies in France for Financial Crimes

    Frédéric Jeannin

    Insights

  • A company can claim privilege against its own shareholder

    Emilie Brammer

    Insights

  • The United Arab Emirates – Seeking Remedies for Financial Crime

    James Colautti

    Insights

  • Obtaining civil remedies in criminal cases: the UAE, Switzerland and France

    James Colautti

    Insights

  • The Swiss Criminal Code on Corruption: Evolution & Developments

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • Peter Smith and Hannah McDonald write for Expert Witness Journal on the use of experts in international arbitration

    Peter Smith

    In the Press

  • Enforcement of Judgments

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Karl Masi writes for The Oath on the Financial Action Task Force

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys succeed in Greggs v Zurich Covid-19 insurance trial

    Manoj Vaghela

    News

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - DIFC

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - Abu Dhabi

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Stephanie Bonnello writes for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog on witness evidence

    In the Press

Back to top