Roadget Business Pte Ltd & Anor v Whaleco UK Limited

In deciding whether disclosure should be confined to an external-eyes-only confidentiality ring, the court must balance the receiving party’s fullest possible access to relevant documents against the disclosing party’s confidentiality interests. External-eyes-only disclosure is exceptional, and the disclosing party retains the burden of justifying it. The provisions establishing inner and outer rings must be read together; the sensitivity of information does not by itself require the inner ring. The judge must evaluate the practical use of the documents, including relevant policing and organisational considerations. An appellate court will not interfere with a case-management discretion absent legal error, failure to consider relevant matters, reliance on irrelevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision. Reasons for an extempore case-management ruling need only make the basis of the decision clear in its context.

Roadget Business Pte Ltd and Shein Distribution UK Ltd, entities in the Shein group, appealed in connection with copyright proceedings brought against Whaleco UK Limited, an entity in the Temu group. Temu counterclaimed under the Competition Act 1998. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ordered disclosure of a list of approximately 450 suppliers who had signed supplier attestations. Shein did not challenge disclosure of the list itself, but argued that it should be confined to the inner confidentiality ring, accessible only to external advisers. The Tribunal ordered disclosure into the outer ring, which included specified in-house lawyers. Shein sought permission to appeal on grounds that the order undermined the purpose of the inner ring and was inadequately reasoned. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had erred in exercising its case-management discretion and whether its reasons were sufficient.

Permission to appeal refused. Neither formulated ground had a real prospect of success.

1. Appellate restraint. An appeal from a case-management decision involving an exercise of discretion faces a high hurdle. The appellate court may interfere for an error of law, failure to take account of relevant matters, reliance on irrelevant matters, or a decision outside the generous ambit within which reasonable decision-makers may disagree, applying the approach in GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL (practice note) [2025] EWCA Civ 933.
2. Confidentiality balance. The starting point is open justice. The court must balance the receiving party’s access to relevant documents against the disclosing party’s interest in preserving confidentiality. External-eyes-only disclosure is exceptional. The disclosing party bears the continuing burden of justifying that restriction. Difficulties of policing, the role of the documents, and the receiving party’s structure and organisation are relevant considerations, following Oneplus Technology v Mitsubishi [2020] EWCA Civ 1562.
3. Application to the two-tier regime. The inner-ring provisions could not be read in isolation from the outer-ring provisions. The two purposes were not mutually exclusive. The Tribunal therefore had to conduct a balancing exercise. It was entitled to conclude that, although the supplier list was highly confidential, the fair conduct of the proceedings required access by specified in-house lawyers, because their participation was needed to interrogate Temu’s website and conduct the proposed analysis. The restrictions imposed on the outer ring materially protected Shein’s interests.
4. Adequacy of reasons. The extent of reasons required depends on the context and the depth of the arguments presented. An extempore ruling in a case-management hearing need not resemble a reserved judgment. The core requirement is that the parties understand the basis of the decision. Here, the Tribunal’s reasons sufficiently explained why access by in-house lawyers was considered necessary, applying GLAS [2025] EWCA Civ 933.
5. Other points. Procedural unfairness was not an arguable ground on the history of the application: Shein bore the burden of justifying external-eyes-only disclosure and had an opportunity to address the issue. A later contention that the Tribunal’s conclusion lacked an evidential foundation was a fundamentally different, unamended ground. In any event, the conclusion was an evaluative judgment supported by the evidence describing the required analysis.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On 5 March 2026, Lord Justice Zacaroli refused permission to appeal.
2. Competition Appeal Tribunal On 17 December 2025, the Tribunal ordered disclosure of the supplier list into the outer confidentiality ring.