Chia-Hsing Wang v Floreat Private Limited & Ors

An English court should exercise caution before granting an injunction which would interfere with proceedings before a foreign court or arbitral tribunal. Comity and practical considerations normally favour leaving questions of relevance, confidentiality, privilege and admissibility to the forum seized of the underlying proceedings, particularly where that forum is better placed to understand the issues before it.

The court may refuse relief on discretionary grounds even where serious issues arise concerning the underlying rights. Delay is material where an injunction would disrupt disclosure or other procedural steps already taken. Protective undertakings may nevertheless be required to reduce the risk of misuse pending determination by the appropriate court or tribunal.

The claimant sought an interim injunction restraining five Floreat entities from using confidential and legally privileged information obtained while providing private-office and legal-advice coordination services. The information had allegedly been used, or was intended to be used, in related English, Cayman, BVI and LCIA proceedings.

The defendants disputed confidentiality, privilege, waiver and the scope of permitted use under the parties’ services agreement. They also argued that an injunction would interfere with the conduct of the other proceedings, breach comity and disrupt disclosure obligations. The central issue was whether the English Commercial Court should restrain use of the information across those proceedings.

1. Application refused. The court declined to grant the injunction sought, principally on discretionary grounds.
2. Following the approach discussed in Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group plc [2022] 1 WLR 561, the court should be circumspect before granting relief which cuts across proceedings before foreign courts or domestic arbitral tribunals. The English court should not arrogate to itself the decision whether material may be deployed before another forum.
3. Practical considerations reinforced that conclusion. The relevant foreign court or tribunal would usually be better placed to assess relevance, confidentiality, privilege and admissibility by reference to the issues and procedural rules governing the proceedings before it. The possibility that different laws, including the lex fori, might apply was also material. The court referred to Suppipat v Wilkie Farr & Gallagher (UK) LLP [2022] EWHC 381 (Comm) in this context.
4. The application was made late, after the related proceedings had progressed substantially and disclosure had occurred or was continuing. An injunction would therefore risk disrupting the orderly disposal of those proceedings, including existing disclosure obligations.
5. The judge deliberately expressed no concluded view on the substantive disputes concerning confidentiality, privilege, waiver or permissible use. Those questions, including whether disclosure should be ordered and on what terms, were matters for the relevant court or tribunal.
6. The defendants were required to provide undertakings, in agreed or court-determined terms, offering some protection against misuse of the information.