Qatar Airways Group QCSC v Airbus SAS

Disclosure in English proceedings is governed by the lex fori. A foreign blocking statute does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order disclosure, although the court may exercise its discretion in light of any real risk of foreign prosecution.

The discretion requires a balancing exercise. The court considers the actual risk of prosecution, the importance of the documents to the fair disposal of the proceedings, possible protective measures and considerations of comity. A letter of request is not required merely because it might avoid a theoretical foreign-law risk. The ordinary disclosure process remains appropriate where the risk is not real and an alternative procedure would introduce delay, uncertainty or disproportionate complexity.

Qatar Airways Group QCSC and Airbus SAS were parties to substantial expedited litigation concerning alleged defects affecting Qatar’s Airbus A350 aircraft. Airbus applied for a letter of request to France, contending that disclosure should be obtained through that route because direct disclosure might expose it to prosecution under the French Blocking Statute.

Qatar opposed the application. It argued that there was no real risk of prosecution and that the proposed procedure would be slow, cumbersome and uncertain, with adverse consequences for the trial timetable. The application required the court to determine whether the ordinary disclosure orders should be displaced and whether a letter of request was an appropriate alternative.

1. Application refused. The existing disclosure orders remained in force. Airbus was ordered to pay Qatar’s costs, assessed at £70,000 payable within 14 days.
2. Procedural matters, including disclosure, are governed by English law as the lex fori. The court may order disclosure even where compliance might breach foreign criminal law. Foreign law does not override the court’s ability to conduct proceedings according to its own procedural law.
3. The court nevertheless has a discretion to withhold or modify an order where there is a real risk of foreign prosecution. The relevant exercise involves balancing the actual risk of prosecution against the importance of the documents to the fair disposal of the English proceedings. Protective measures and comity may also be relevant.
4. There was no real risk of Airbus being prosecuted under the French Blocking Statute in the circumstances. The statute had produced only one prosecution, which was exceptional. The recent French developments relied on by Airbus principally concerned anti-corruption investigations, sensitive or sovereign-sensitive information and guidance to companies. They did not establish a real prosecution risk in ordinary civil disclosure.
5. The proposed letter of request was not a satisfactory substitute for direct disclosure. It involved approval and transmission through official channels, possible involvement of French authorities and uncertainty over the treatment of broad document categories. It was likely to be slower and more complex than ordinary disclosure, and even a short delay threatened the expedited trial timetable.
6. Airbus’s late investigation of the proposed route was also relevant. It had agreed to English law and jurisdiction, had participated in the litigation and had already provided disclosure without the French Blocking Statute preventing compliance. The application was therefore refused.