Cancrie Investments Limited SARL v Zulfiqur Al Tanveer Haider

A seal and gag order supporting third-party disclosure may be granted only where it is strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. The applicant must establish the case with clear and cogent evidence. The court must consider whether notification would create a real risk that the purpose of the disclosure, or an existing freezing order, would be defeated. The order must be the minimum necessary and proportionate interference with open justice and freedom of expression. Where a freezing order is difficult to police because asset disclosure is arguably incomplete, disclosure from a third party may be necessary to make the order effective. A short, temporary restriction may satisfy the minimum-necessary requirement where the affected third party will later be heard.

The claimant, assignee of a substantial UAE judgment debt, sought to enforce that judgment in England against the defendant. Worldwide freezing relief and ancillary disclosure obligations were already in force. The claimant alleged that the defendant had failed adequately to disclose assets and the sources of his legal fees and living expenses, creating difficulty in policing the freezing orders.

The claimant brought a two-stage application. It first sought, without notice, to seal the court file and prevent EFG Private Bank Ltd, a non-party respondent to the proposed disclosure application, from informing the defendant or anyone else of that application. The central issue was whether such a temporary order was necessary to prevent further dissipation and to preserve the utility of any disclosure order.

1. Order granted. The court sealed the file concerning the proposed disclosure application and prohibited EFG Private Bank Ltd from informing the defendant or anyone else of it until the conclusion of the disclosure hearing.
2. The court accepted that derogation from open justice and restriction of freedom of expression are wholly exceptional. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, section 12, relief affecting freedom of expression should not ordinarily be granted without notification unless practicable notification has been attempted or compelling reasons justify proceeding without it. The Practice Guidance required strict necessity and clear and cogent evidence.
3. There was a real risk of dissipation. The relevant background included late and apparently unsatisfactory asset disclosure, unexplained interests in valuable assets, alleged transfers to family members, and possible breaches of the freezing orders. The court did not finally determine any alleged breach, but held that it was properly arguable that disclosure obligations had not been met.
4. The evidence also established a properly arguable case that the defendant had not disclosed the sources of payment of his legal fees and living expenses. The court considered that disclosure from EFG Bank was likely to be necessary, at least in part, to police the freezing orders. Proper disclosure was treated as generally essential to make worldwide freezing relief effective.
5. Notification created a further real risk that the defendant would dissipate assets, or prevent information being obtained, particularly in relation to assets held in another person’s name. The order was the minimum necessary: it was temporary, limited to the period until the disclosure hearing, and protected EFG Bank by clarifying that it must not reveal the application.