Aabar Holdings SARL & Ors v Glencore Plc & Ors [2025] EWHC 2727 (KB) (02 October 2025)

Aabar Holdings SARL & Ors v Glencore Plc & Ors [2025] EWHC 2727 (KB) (02 October 2025)

The Applicants failed to justify the necessity for an external eyes only confidentiality ring; a conventional confidentiality ring including up to two in-house lawyers per Claimant group (with possible exception for BCLP group upon further explanation) is appropriate. The Claimants, as successful parties on the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2727 (KB)
Parties
Claimants: AABAR HOLDINGS S.À. R. L & OTHERS; First Defendant: GLENCORE PLC; Second Defendant: MR IVAN GLASENBERG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Consequentials Hearing in Commercial Litigation (financial List) / Post Judgment Consequential Orders Following Disclosure Restriction Applications
Outcome
Applications for EEO confidentiality ring refused; conventional confidentiality ring ordered with specified limits; costs awarded to Claimants (except for DPPO/FIOD correspondence); 14-day deadline for disclosure.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Disclosure, Costs Orders, Foreign Law Restrictions, Open Justice
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Confidentiality Orders Disclosure Costs Orders Foreign Law Restrictions Open Justice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AABAR HOLDINGS S.À. R. L & OTHERS

Claimants

GLENCORE PLC

First Defendant

MR IVAN GLASENBERG

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consequentials Hearing in Commercial Litigation (financial List) / Post Judgment Consequential Orders Following Disclosure Restriction Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a confidentiality ring order should be made on 'external eyes only' (EEO) terms or conventional terms
  2. 2 Deadline for disclosure of documents subject to the applications
  3. 3 Allocation of costs for applications relating to Dutch law restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to justify the necessity for an external eyes only confidentiality ring; a conventional confidentiality ring including up to two in-house lawyers per Claimant group (with possible exception for BCLP group upon further explanation) is appropriate. The Claimants, as successful parties on the applications regarding Dutch law restrictions, are entitled to their costs, save for costs relating to DPPO/FIOD correspondence, which are costs in the case. Disclosure of the relevant documents is to be made within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Applications for EEO confidentiality ring refused; conventional confidentiality ring ordered with specified limits; costs awarded to Claimants (except for DPPO/FIOD correspondence); 14-day deadline for disclosure.

Orders

  • Confidentiality ring order to include up to two in-house lawyers per Claimant group (BCLP group may seek more upon explanation)
  • Disclosure of MLAT Request and relevant FIOD documents within 14 days