English Court of Appeal Clarifies High Threshold for Withholding Disclosure on Grounds of Foreign Regulatory Confidentiality

The court ruled that foreign regulatory confidentiality is not an automatic shield against disclosure in English litigation without compelling evidence.

Published on Feb. 11, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In Various Claimants v Standard Chartered plc, the English Court of Appeal considered when a party can withhold disclosure on the basis that documents are subject to foreign regulatory confidentiality or may expose a party to foreign criminal or regulatory sanction. The court confirmed that withholding disclosure is exceptional and that most concerns can be addressed by a confidentiality ring, unless the resisting party demonstrates a real, evidenced risk of foreign sanction and minimal relevance.

Why it matters

This case is significant for international businesses subject to regulation in multiple countries, as it clarifies the high bar for withholding disclosure on grounds of foreign regulatory confidentiality in English litigation. The ruling emphasizes that foreign regulatory confidentiality is not a shield against disclosure without compelling justification, and that confidentiality rings are often the preferred tool to balance open justice and foreign confidentiality concerns.

The details

Standard Chartered was subject to a £1.5 billion group claim alleging its published information between 2007-2019 was misleading due to sanctions-related misconduct. The bank applied to withhold around 250 documents, including Confidential Supervisory Information and US Suspicious Activity Reports, arguing disclosure risked exposing it to criminal prosecution or regulatory sanction overseas. The court ruled the resisting party must demonstrate a real risk of prosecution or sanction, not just a theoretical risk, and that civil or regulatory action carries less weight than criminal liability, especially where confidentiality rings can mitigate potential harm. The court also stated there is no special protection for foreign regulatory confidentiality over private law obligations, and that the US regulators' refusal to authorize disclosure did not create an automatic presumption against inspection in English proceedings.

  • The case, Various Claimants v Standard Chartered plc, was decided in 2025.

The players

Standard Chartered plc

A multinational banking and financial services company that was subject to a £1.5 billion group claim in English litigation.

Federal Reserve Board

A US regulatory agency that generated Confidential Supervisory Information related to Standard Chartered.

New York Department of Financial Services

A US regulatory agency that generated Confidential Supervisory Information related to Standard Chartered.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“the burden of persuasion is a substantial one”

— Lord Justice Miles (Various Claimants v Standard Chartered plc [2025] EWCA Civ 1581)

The takeaway

This ruling establishes that foreign regulatory confidentiality is not an automatic shield against disclosure in English litigation. Parties must provide compelling, evidence-based justification to withhold documents, as confidentiality rings are often the preferred tool to balance open justice and foreign confidentiality concerns.