The Public Institution for Social Security v Muna Al-Rajaan Al Wazzan & Ors

The Public Institution for Social Security v Muna Al-Rajaan Al Wazzan & Ors

Disclosure of the SFPO file and other Swiss-based documents is not prohibited by Swiss law in the circumstances of this case, as English procedural law governs and no real risk of prosecution or other prejudice is established. The applicants' access to the SFPO file is not subject to secrecy obligations, and Article 271 SCC is not engaged by standard English disclosure orders lacking penal notice. Comity concerns about onward transmission to Kuwait can be addressed by appropriate restrictions. The balance of fairness and necessity for a fair trial strongly favours disclosure.

Parties
Claimant: The Public Institution for Social Security; First Defendant: Fahad Maziad Rajaan Al Rajaan; Second Defendant: Muna Al-Rajaan Al Wazzan; Third Defendant: Muna Mohammed Abdulaziz Al Wazzan; Fourth Defendant: Banque Pictet & Cie SA; Fifth Defendant: Philippe Bertherat; Sixth Defendant: Kamran Amouzegar; Seventh Defendant: Phoenix International Consultants SARL; Eighth Defendant: Antoine Nasrallah; Ninth Defendant: Pictet & Cie (Europe) SA; Tenth Defendant: Pictet Bank and Trust Limited; Eleventh Defendant: Bank Pictet & Cie (Asia) Limited; Twelfth Defendant: Mirabaud & Cie SA; Thirteenth Defendant: Pierre Mirabaud; Fourteenth Defendant: Thierry Fauchier-Magnan; Fifteenth Defendant: Luc Argand; Sixteenth Defendant: Man Group Limited (formerly Man Group PLC); Seventeenth Defendant: Man Strategic Holdings Limited; Eighteenth Defendant: Man Investments Limited; Nineteenth Defendant: Man Investments AG; Twentieth Defendant: Man Investments Middle East Limited; Twenty First Defendant: Antoine Massad; Twenty Second Defendant: Mohammead El Ghazzi; Twenty Third Defendant: Union Bancaire Privée, UBP SA; Twenty Fourth Defendant: UBP Asset Management (Bermuda) Limited; Twenty Fifth Defendant: Anne Rotman de Picciotto; Twenty Sixth Defendant: Daniel de Picciotto; Twenty Seventh Defendant: Francesco Mombelli; Twenty Eighth Defendant: ICS Investment Consulting Services SA; Twenty Ninth Defendant: Sintesi Limited; Thirtieth Defendant: Methis Management Limited; Thirty First Defendant: EFG Bank AG; Thirty Second Defendant: Gilles Guerin; Thirty Third Defendant: The Estate of Edgar de Picciotto; Thirty Fourth Defendant: Guy de Picciotto; Thirty Fifth Defendant: Marc de Picciotto; Thirty Sixth Defendant: Daniele de Picciotto; Thirty Seventh Defendant: VP Bank AG; Thirty Eighth Defendant: VP Bank (Schweiz) AG; Thirty Ninth Defendant: Renato Ghittini; Fortieth Defendant: Ely Michel Ruimy; Forty First Defendant: Aerium Finance Limited; Forty Second Defendant: The Pensée Foundation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Interlocutory Application (disclosure)
Outcome
Applications resisting disclosure and inspection dismissed, subject to limited caveat for comity measures.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Mutual Legal Assistance, Foreign Law Risk, Comity, Confidentiality, Banking Secrecy
Civil Procedure International Law Conflict of Laws Disclosure Mutual Legal Assistance Foreign Law Risk Comity Confidentiality +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Public Institution for Social Security

Claimant

Fahad Maziad Rajaan Al Rajaan

First Defendant

Muna Al-Rajaan Al Wazzan

Second Defendant

Muna Mohammed Abdulaziz Al Wazzan

Third Defendant

Banque Pictet & Cie SA

Fourth Defendant

Philippe Bertherat

Fifth Defendant

Kamran Amouzegar

Sixth Defendant

Phoenix International Consultants SARL

Seventh Defendant

Antoine Nasrallah

Eighth Defendant

Pictet & Cie (Europe) SA

Ninth Defendant

Pictet Bank and Trust Limited

Tenth Defendant

Bank Pictet & Cie (Asia) Limited

Eleventh Defendant

Mirabaud & Cie SA

Twelfth Defendant

Pierre Mirabaud

Thirteenth Defendant

Thierry Fauchier-Magnan

Fourteenth Defendant

Luc Argand

Fifteenth Defendant

Man Group Limited (formerly Man Group PLC)

Sixteenth Defendant

Man Strategic Holdings Limited

Seventeenth Defendant

Man Investments Limited

Eighteenth Defendant

Man Investments AG

Nineteenth Defendant

Man Investments Middle East Limited

Twentieth Defendant

Antoine Massad

Twenty First Defendant

Mohammead El Ghazzi

Twenty Second Defendant

Union Bancaire Privée, UBP SA

Twenty Third Defendant

UBP Asset Management (Bermuda) Limited

Twenty Fourth Defendant

Anne Rotman de Picciotto

Twenty Fifth Defendant

Daniel de Picciotto

Twenty Sixth Defendant

Francesco Mombelli

Twenty Seventh Defendant

ICS Investment Consulting Services SA

Twenty Eighth Defendant

Sintesi Limited

Twenty Ninth Defendant

Methis Management Limited

Thirtieth Defendant

EFG Bank AG

Thirty First Defendant

Gilles Guerin

Thirty Second Defendant

The Estate of Edgar de Picciotto

Thirty Third Defendant

Guy de Picciotto

Thirty Fourth Defendant

Marc de Picciotto

Thirty Fifth Defendant

Daniele de Picciotto

Thirty Sixth Defendant

VP Bank AG

Thirty Seventh Defendant

VP Bank (Schweiz) AG

Thirty Eighth Defendant

Renato Ghittini

Thirty Ninth Defendant

Ely Michel Ruimy

Fortieth Defendant

Aerium Finance Limited

Forty First Defendant

The Pensée Foundation

Forty Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Interlocutory Application (disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of Swiss-based documents and the SFPO file should be restricted due to alleged risks under Swiss law.
  2. 2 Whether English procedural law overrides foreign criminal law risks in disclosure.
  3. 3 Whether comity and mutual legal assistance processes justify limiting disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of the SFPO file and other Swiss-based documents is not prohibited by Swiss law in the circumstances of this case, as English procedural law governs and no real risk of prosecution or other prejudice is established. The applicants' access to the SFPO file is not subject to secrecy obligations, and Article 271 SCC is not engaged by standard English disclosure orders lacking penal notice. Comity concerns about onward transmission to Kuwait can be addressed by appropriate restrictions. The balance of fairness and necessity for a fair trial strongly favours disclosure.

Court Disposition

Applications resisting disclosure and inspection dismissed, subject to limited caveat for comity measures.

Orders

  • Disclosure and inspection of SFPO file and other Swiss-based documents ordered.
  • Measures to prevent onward transmission to State of Kuwait to be determined after further argument.