COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DISCLOSURE ORDER DESPITE RISK OF PROSECUTION IN IRAN

22 March, 2019

The Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision requiring the claimant Iranian bank to produce customer documents in unredacted form, subject to measures to protect their confidentiality, despite the fact that compliance would put the claimant in breach of Iranian law: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019] EWCA Civ 449.

This case gives a helpful illustration of the court’s approach where a party asserts that the production of documents under its disclosure obligations will contravene foreign criminal law. The court will balance the actual risk of prosecution in the foreign jurisdiction against the importance of the documents to the fair disposal of the trial. While the risk of prosecution will be a factor to weigh in the balance, it will not be determinative.

It is interesting to compare the High Court’s similar decision, albeit in a contrasting context, in the recent case of ACL Netherlands BV v Lynch (considered here). In that case the court declined to grant a party permission to use documents received on disclosure in the English litigation in order to comply with a US grand jury subpoena. Both decisions deal with a scenario where documents are required for proceedings in one jurisdiction but production will put the party in breach of its obligations under the (civil or criminal) law of another jurisdiction. Both decisions highlight the difficulties that may be faced by a party that finds itself caught between conflicting obligations in this way.

Continue reading →

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN ENRC: ORTHODOXY RESTORED ON LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, BUT NARROW INTERPRETATION OF “CLIENT” REMAINS FOR NOW

5 September, 2018

The Court of Appeal has today handed down its eagerly awaited decision in the ENRC appeal: The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006. At first instance, the High Court took a restrictive approach to both litigation privilege and legal advice privilege (see our summary of the decision here). The Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal on the question of litigation privilege but has, with apparent reluctance, dismissed the appeal on legal advice privilege, concluding it is a matter for the Supreme Court. Continue reading →

Latest bank victory – Hong Kong High Court dismisses mis-selling claim

14 August, 2018

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has recently handed down its judgment in Shine Grace Investment Ltd v. Citibank, N.A. and Another (HCCL 28/2008), a case relating to alleged mis-selling of equity accumulator contracts by Citibank.

In dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, Mr Justice Peter Ng applied the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s (CA’s) reasoning in Chang Pui Yin & Ors v Bank of Singapore [2017] 4 HKLRD 458 that a bank-customer relationship alone does not without more give rise to a duty to advise on the part of the bank. Instead, whether the bank has assumed any such duty or legal responsibility will be assessed objectively, for instance through the contractual terms and any other relevant factual circumstances concerning the bank and its customers.

This is another welcome decision for banks, affirming the central importance of the contractual terms themselves. As a matter of contractual interpretation, the court rejected an argument that the SFC’s main code of conduct had been incorporated by the express terms of the relevant contractual documents. Apart from the contractual terms, the relative sophistication and character of the customer in question was also highly relevant to the court’s decision.

Going forward, financial institutions will no longer be able to rely on their contractual terms to exclude or limit liability in relation to investments entered into after 9 June 2017. Since that date, where a written client agreement is required under SFC regulations (ie, primarily where individual investors and inexperienced corporate investors are involved), a financial institution subject to the regulations is required to include a mandatory suitability clause in the agreement, and may not derogate from this requirement by way of any other contractual arrangement. In the longer term, this is likely to mean fewer mis-selling cases along the lines of Shine Grace.

For our full briefing on the matter please click here.

Gareth Thomas
Gareth Thomas
Partner, Head of Commercial Litigation, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4025
Dominic Geiser
Dominic Geiser
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4629
William Hallatt
William Hallatt
Partner, Head of Financial Services Regulatory, Asia, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4036
Hannah Cassidy
Hannah Cassidy
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4133
Joanna Caen
Joanna Caen
Partner, Hong Kong
+852 2101 4167

 

 

Hong Kong Court of Appeal finds against bank on the basis that the bank’s exclusion of liability clauses were unconscionable and unreasonable

22 August, 2017

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) has recently affirmed a decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI), in which a ruling was made in favour of the plaintiff investors in a mis-selling claim against a bank, albeit on different grounds to that of the CFI (click here for the full judgment and here for our e-bulletin on the CFI decision). Overturning the CFI’s ruling on contractual interpretation, the CA held that the exclusion clauses in the bank’s services agreement did apply to the plaintiffs’ non-discretionary accounts. The CA however went on to find that the exclusion clauses the bank sought to rely on to limit its liability were unconscionable under the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance and did not satisfy the requirement of reasonableness under the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance. This is the first decision of its kind where the court considered unconscionability in a banking context. Our recent e-bulletin examines the decision in more detail. If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact our Hong Kong team as listed on the e-bulletin, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Court of Appeal decides extended warranties are regulated insurance products

3 February, 2012

Re Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited

There has been legal uncertainty about whether extended warranties on consumer goods might be regulated insurance products, falling under regulation of the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”). The Court of Appeal has now decided they can be, in dismissing an appeal against winding-up orders secured by the FSA against three unregulated providers of extended warranties for satellite television equipment.

The decision in Re Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited may have regulatory implications for those who provide, or sell, extended warranties in relation to various consumer goods and appliances. A copy of the judgment is available here.

Our briefing on the case can be found here.