LLC Eurochem North-West-2 & Anor v Société Générale S.A. & Ors

The principle of open justice is the starting point. Confidentiality orders are exceptional and must be justified by clear and cogent evidence. They must go no further than necessary and may be relaxed as information loses its commercial value over time.

A staged confidentiality club may be appropriate while disclosure issues are investigated, without deciding finally whether documents are confidential. Where foreign-law restrictions are relied on, uncontradicted expert or practitioner evidence may justify maintaining confidentiality. Information that has become stale will generally lose confidentiality, although sensitive details such as bank-account numbers may still require redaction.

The claim concerned six on-demand bonds worth approximately €275 million, issued by SocGen and ING in connection with a fertiliser plant in Russia. The Banks declined to pay after EU sanctions were imposed on the founder of the Eurochem Group.

The application, brought by Tecnimont and supported by the Banks, concerned whether 55 disclosed documents and the transcript of a witness’s evidence should remain within a confidentiality club. The documents included material from proceedings before the CJEU, historical bank-balance information, and documents referred to during cross-examination. The central issues were whether confidentiality had been established, whether it had expired, and whether a transcript of evidence heard in private should be released.

1. Confidentiality principles. The court adopted the principles summarised from Cavallari v Mercedes-Benz Group AG [2024] EWHC 190 (KB). Open justice is the starting point. Confidentiality orders are exceptional, must be supported by clear and cogent evidence, and must go no further than necessary. Information may cease to be confidential when its value is lost through the passage of time and progress.
2. Staged confidentiality club. The earlier orders had established the club as an interim measure and had not determined whether the documents were confidential. That approach was consistent with Interdigital v OnePlus [2023] EWCA Civ 166, at [28].
3. CJEU documents. The Claimants’ evidence that disclosure or use of pleadings and other documents submitted to the CJEU would contravene EU law was uncontradicted. The documents therefore remained confidential and within the club. The related SocGen written opening was also confidential to the extent that it referred to those documents.
4. Financial documents. Information about cash balances in March 2022 was no longer confidential by June 2025. Bank-account numbers remained sensitive and were to be redacted. The remaining documents put to Mr Fokin required no redaction and were not confidential. The related Clifford Chance letter was likewise not confidential.
5. Private evidence. The transcript of Mr Fokin’s evidence could not be made public under CPR r 39.9(3)-(4) unless the court ordered otherwise. The parties had agreed that the evidence would be heard in private. In the absence of a compelling reason, it would be harmful to allow Tecnimont to overturn that agreement after the event, particularly when its only identified purpose was use in related arbitration proceedings. The application concerning the transcript was refused.