Frasers Group PLC v Saxo Bank A/S & Anor

Frasers Group PLC v Saxo Bank A/S & Anor

The court found that further disclosure and searches sought by the claimant were not necessary or proportionate, characterizing the applications as speculative and akin to fishing expeditions. The court also determined that adding further custodians at this stage was not justified, given the timing and prior disclosure orders. Costs were summarily assessed in favor of the second defendant, with an uplift to reflect the nature and conduct of the application.

Parties
Claimant: Frasers Group PLC; Defendant: Saxo Bank A/S; Defendant: Morgan Stanley & Co International
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Disclosure Application / Disclosure Ruling and Costs Assessment
Outcome
Application for further disclosure refused; costs awarded to second defendant.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Costs, Proportionality of Disclosure, Case Management
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Costs Proportionality of Disclosure Case Management

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

Parties

Frasers Group PLC

Claimant

Saxo Bank A/S

Defendant

Morgan Stanley & Co International

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Disclosure Application / Disclosure Ruling and Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure and searches are necessary and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether additional custodians should be added for disclosure
  3. 3 Assessment of costs for the disclosure application

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that further disclosure and searches sought by the claimant were not necessary or proportionate, characterizing the applications as speculative and akin to fishing expeditions. The court also determined that adding further custodians at this stage was not justified, given the timing and prior disclosure orders. Costs were summarily assessed in favor of the second defendant, with an uplift to reflect the nature and conduct of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure refused; costs awarded to second defendant.

Orders

  • No further disclosure or searches ordered.
  • No additional custodians to be added for disclosure.