Standard Life Assurance Ltd & Anor v Topland Col Ltd & Ors (Rev 1)

Documents obtained by the Serious Fraud Office under compulsory statutory powers do not, before criminal proceedings have begun, generate an implied undertaking to any court restricting their use. A recipient’s use of such material in civil proceedings is therefore not, merely for that reason, contempt of court or an abuse of process.

The material may nevertheless be subject to private-law duties of confidence. Any application for injunctive relief requires a balance between preserving confidentiality and securing a fair trial on full evidence. Public-domain, independently obtained and non-confidential material may be used. Where the claim can properly be formulated without protected material, striking out is inappropriate.

Standard Life brought claims against Topland and LSM arising from the sale and subsequent regearing of a leasehold property. Standard Life had received documents from the Serious Fraud Office during an investigation into related conduct and relied on material from that collection, known as the SFO Pack, in its civil proceedings.

Topland applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, sought injunctions restraining use or disclosure of alleged confidential information, and sought summary judgment on its counterclaim. Standard Life applied, if necessary, for permission to use the SFO Pack. The issues were whether receipt of material from the SFO created an implied undertaking to the court, whether its use constituted abuse of process, and whether confidentiality required injunctive relief.

1. Implied undertaking. The compulsory acquisition of documents or information by the SFO under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 did not create an implied undertaking to the Crown Court or any other court. Nor did a recipient who received the material through the statutory gateway acquire such an undertaking. The position might differ where disclosure occurred in an already commenced criminal prosecution, but that question was left open.
2. Abuse of process. Abuse in the context of CPR 3.4(2)(b) concerns misuse of the court’s process, ordinarily involving a predominant purpose of achieving an object outside the remedies offered by law. Mere use in civil proceedings of material obtained by the SFO under statutory powers was not contempt and was not, without special additional features, an abuse.
3. Confidentiality. The statutory restrictions on the SFO’s own disclosure did not eliminate private-law rights of confidence. A recipient could be restrained by injunction where the circumstances justified it. Confidentiality was qualified where the material entered the public domain and where it conflicted with the public interest in a fair trial on full evidence.
4. The material available from the public domain, independent sources, Standard Life’s own documents, and documents not confidential to Topland or LSM enabled Standard Life to formulate a viable claim. The relevant documents therefore could not be withheld from use, and Topland would in any event be required to disclose documents in its possession or control, subject to the usual undertaking governing use after disclosure.
5. Topland’s strike-out application, injunction application and claim for summary judgment were dismissed. Standard Life was not granted a positive order permitting use of the SFO Pack, but was not restrained from relying on it.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.