Back to Insights listing

Commercial disputesMonday 3 August 2026

Commercial Court provides guidance on pre-action disclosure in commercial cases: asymmetry of information in misrepresentation claims will not take a case out of “the usual run”

The Commercial Court has given judgment in the matter of Union Bancaire Privée, UBP SA v L Catterton Europe SAS [2026] EWHC 2041 (Comm), a pre-action disclosure application in the context of a proposed deceit claim involving a private equity fund. The decision provides helpful guidance as to the circumstances in which the court will, and will not, order pre-action disclosure in commercial cases. In particular:

  1. An asymmetry of information between the parties is an entirely common feature in threatened misrepresentation claims in the Commercial Court. Where, as in the present case, an applicant’s position was that it could plead a claim on the basis of the information already available to, an asymmetry of information will not be sufficient to take the case outside of the ‘usual run’ to justify an order for pre-action disclosure being granted.
  2. Similarly, the fact that the pre-action disclosure sought would enable the intended claimant to plead its claim with greater precision will not be enough to justify an order for pre-action disclosure. Particularly in cases in which it is unlikely that it would avoid the need for the claim to be amended following full disclosure in the proceedings in due course.
  3. When it comes to pre-action disclosure, the Commercial Court Guide makes clear that, subject to complying with the relevant pre-action practice direction and applicable protocol, parties are not generally expected to engage in elaborate or expensive pre-action procedures.

Marcia Shekerdemian KC and Francesca Mitchell acted for the successful Respondent, instructed by a stellar team at Mishcon de Reya LLP: Janet Tobin, Jenny Vipond and Emma James.

Read the full judgment

People to view:

Share by: Email

Related Insights View all thought leadership

  1. Placeholder

    Articles

    A fiduciary’s duty to disclose: a shield, not a sword?

    In the latest edition of our commercial litigation insights series, Alice Hawker examines the Court of Appeal's recent decision in G.I. Globinvestment Ltd v XY ERS UK Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1248, considering whether a fiduciary's duty to disclose is a shield (against claims alleging breach of the ’no conflict’ or ’no profit’ rules) or a sword (to be used as a freestanding claim).

    By Alice Hawker
    Monday 19 October 2026

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    Articles

    Nelson, what does your right eye see? When does wilful ignorance amount to dishonesty

    In this article in our commercial litigation insights series, Ernest Leung analyses the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Grosvenor Property Developers Limited v Portner Law Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1238, which provides important guidance on the test for dishonesty in civil fraud claims and the circumstances in which "Nelsonian" or blind-eye knowledge can be imputed to a party.

    By Ernest Leung
    Tuesday 13 October 2026

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Judgment of the ECSC Court of Appeal delivered in JSC BTA Bank v Mamesh and others

    Civil fraud and asset recovery, Commercial disputes

    Thomas Grant KC
    Friday 9 October 2026

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Permission to proceed? Derivative claim denied

    Company law, Commercial disputes, Joint venture and partnership disputes, Trusts, probate and estates: contentious

    Nikki Singla KC | Caspar Bartscherer
    Tuesday 6 October 2026

    View more

View all thought leadership