Right To Inspect SARS Under The Civil Jurisdiction (Lonsdale V National Westminster Bank)

The High Court in Lonsdale v National Westminster Bank Plc considered the extent to which it was possible to obtain disclosure and/or inspection of suspicious activity reports (SARs) in civil proceedings. The case demonstrates the power of the court to order the disclosure of these otherwise confidential documents despite objections that to do so might constitute an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). John Binns, partner, and Rosanna Cardona, solicitor, at BCL Solicitors LLP, consider the case.

Lonsdale v National Westminster Bank Plc [2018] EWHC 1843 (QB), [2018] All ER (D) 206 (Jul)

What are the practical implications of this judgment from a corporate crime perspective?

The case concerned the interaction of various individual rights—including the right of access to personal data (then governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998)), as well as substantive rights under the laws of contract and defamation—with the provisions of the POCA 2002 relating to authorised disclosures (a type of SAR). Broadly speaking, it established that an individual may have rights to access such disclosures, and/or to inspect them under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), in appropriate circumstances.

Background to this judgment

The background to the case is one that many corporate crime practitioners will find familiar—the blocking of bank accounts associated with the claimant by the defendant bank, which had formed suspicions about the funds in them and made disclosures to the National Crime Agency (NCA), seeking consent to transact. The claimant initially sought access by way of a subject access request under section 7 of the DPA 1998 to all documents relating to the blocking of the accounts. The bank provided only limited and redacted material, which did not include the disclosures, but then referred to them in its defence to his subsequent claims (for breach of contract and defamation, as well as for breach of the DPA 1998). He then applied for inspection of the disclosures pursuant to CPR 31.14.

The bank opposed the application and applied to have the claims struck out, saying that:

the disclosures and related documents (a) were not personal data, and (b) in any event were exempted by DPA 1998, s 29 (because access to them would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) to permit access to or inspection of the disclosures would entail offences of tipping-off or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT