STLC Europe Thirteen Leasing Limited v Qatar Airways Group QCSC

A confidentiality ring is a justified exception to open justice only where protection for confidential information is established and the proposed terms are necessary and proportionate. The court must balance the receiving party’s need for the fullest possible access to relevant documents against the disclosing party’s and third parties’ interests in preserving confidentiality. The usual collateral undertaking under CPR 31.22 will ordinarily suffice, but additional safeguards may be ordered where justified. Protective terms should address unauthorised access and use without imposing unsupported or punitive restrictions. Procedures for designation and challenge should be clear, efficient and capable of adjustment where appropriate.

The claimant leased two Airbus A330 aircraft to the defendant. Following sanctions imposed after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the defendant took the aircraft out of service. The claimant brought claims for rent, maintenance-related damages and end-of-lease compensation; the defendant counterclaimed storage costs and loss of profits.

The court was asked to resolve disputes concerning the draft confidentiality ring order, including the definition of confidential information, membership and liability, undertakings, designation and challenge procedures, and document-production protocols. The decision was made on the parties’ written submissions.

The court resolved the disputed provisions and directed that the confidentiality ring order be made in modified terms.

1. Applicable principles. Open justice is fundamental, and parties should ordinarily have unrestricted access to the case against them, including disclosure. The collateral undertaking under CPR 31.22 will generally provide sufficient protection. Confidential information may justify derogation where it is not public and disclosure would reasonably be expected to destroy its value or cause harm. Confidentiality orders remain exceptional and require justification. The court must balance access to relevant documents against the preservation of confidential information.
2. Confidential information. Applications to the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control and State Department, supporting material, communications and final decisions concerning licences were sufficiently shown to contain sensitive information connected with the liquidation process. They were therefore included within the confidential categories. Reliance on United States freedom of information exemptions supported, but did not conclusively establish, confidentiality.
3. Membership and undertakings. It would be unduly onerous to make listed members liable for compliance by supervised support staff who were not themselves required to give undertakings. Subcontractors could not be excluded from external eDiscovery and litigation support where that category necessarily involved them. A proposed restriction on airline-related commercial activities was unjustified, particularly because no specific risk was identified and existing terms already prevented misuse.
4. Security measures. Requirements concerning encryption, printing, secure document systems, access limitation, artificial-intelligence tools, multi-factor authentication and audit logs were sensible, reasonable and proportionate. Requests for details of protective measures should be reasonable. Confirmation of completion was sufficient; certification was unnecessary. A proposed indemnity for breach was punitive and inappropriate, but immediate notification and reasonable co-operation following suspected, actual or threatened unauthorised access were appropriate.
5. Procedure. Parties could choose whether designation details appeared in disclosure lists or in a separate document, provided that any separate document cross-referred to the relevant entries and made the basis of confidentiality readily apparent. A short written challenge procedure was appropriate, subject to the ability to request an oral hearing or procedural revision. The defendant’s production protocol was adopted, with liberty to apply if practical difficulties arose.