Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees S.A. (a company incorporated in Switzerland, in its capacity as trustee of the Tchenguiz Family Trust) and Others (Respondents in 2013 Folios 1448 & 1449) (4) Vincent Tchenguiz and Another (Respondents in 2013 Folio 1448) Robert Tchenguiz and Others (Respondents in 2013 Folios 1450 and 1451) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Applicant in all claims)

Hearing dates: 26 March 2015

These proceedings were settled in July 2014. Notwithstanding, this is an application by the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") for an order pursuant to CPR 31.22(2) restricting or prohibiting the use of certain documents which were previously disclosed in the proceedings. The claimants in 2013 Folios 1448 and 1449 have now given certain undertakings as a result of which the parties have agreed that there be no order on the application against those claimants. However, the application is resisted by the claimants in 2013 Folio 1450 and 1451 (the "RT claimants").

The original order sought by the SFO has been modified to take account of certain particular objections raised by the RT claimants and, as modified, is in the following form:

" If the Claimants in 2013 Folios 1450 and 1451 propose to make any use (including any further disclosure) other than for the purpose of these proceedings of any or all of the documents listed in the Slaughter and May Schedule which was sent to those Claimants on 26 March 2015 (save insofar as those documents were the subject of paragraph 3 of the court's Order dated 10 February 2015) and/or any information derived from such documents on the ground that the material in question has, before the date of this hearing "been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public" (CPR r.31.22(1)(a)), they shall provide the Defendant's solicitors, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, with 14 clear days' notice in writing of such proposed use in advance of such proposed use, and shall identify the documents and information to be used and the nature of such proposed use."

CPR 31.22 provides in material part as follows:

" 31.22(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where –

(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public …

(2) the court may make an order restricting or prohibiting the use of a document which has been disclosed, even where the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public …"

The background to the application may be summarised as follows. Before the main proceedings were settled, there had been a substantial number of interlocutory hearings. On 19 January 2015, the RT claimants issued two applications – which became known as the "public domain applications" – which sought a declaration that certain documents disclosed by the SFO had lost CPR 31.22(1) protection, by reason of the exception in subparagraph (a) i.e. because they had " … been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public …" during those interlocutory proceedings. By the time the public domain applications were heard on 6 February 2015, it was common ground that 26 of the documents identified by the RT claimants had indeed lost such protection; and the RT claimants did not pursue their application in respect of the remainder.

However, the SFO did succeed in a counter-application under CPR 31.22(2), which was issued on 2 February 2015, the effect of which was to re-attach CPR 31.22(1) protection to the 26 documents for reasons set out in my Judgment which is reported as [2015] EWHC 266 (Comm), in particular at paras 74–95 ("Public Domain Judgment"). I understand that the RT claimants have applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I should mention that Lord Pannick QC made plain that the RT claimants take the position that my previous decision was wrong but rather than repeat R&H's previous submissions, they will instead pursue these points on appeal as necessary.

For reasons which are set out in the 6 ^th witness statement of Mr Raymond Emson served on behalf of the SFO in support of the application, it appears that the SFO consider that the same logic which caused the 26 documents to have lost CPR 31.22(1) protection may also apply to further documents which formed part of the voluminous material put before the Court during the interlocutory stage of the proceedings before they settled. As Mr Emson explains in his witness statement, those documents have now been identified. Shortly before the commencement of the present hearing, a list of such documents was produced and provided to the RT claimants'...