In this case update, we examine what this case means for public procurement challenges, in particular confidentiality ring applications
and concerns regarding the balancing of reasonable and proportionate exchange of confidential information.
Overview
In litigation proceedings, a confidentiality ring allows the parties
to exchange confidential documents (such as commercially or
competitively sensitive information) relating to each other, as
well as third parties, where access to confidential documents
is restricted to permitted named individuals only and sets out
the terms of how the confidential documents are handled, with
such being achieved by the establishment of a Confidentiality
Ring Order (CRO).1 It is possible to establish a CRO prior to the
issue of proceedings to obtain early specific disclosure to support
resolution of the dispute, with the aim of avoiding the need to
issue proceedings.
There is particular sensitivity in relation to confidentiality rings
on the part of third parties and the effectiveness of safeguards.
Nonetheless, the use of confidentiality rings is explicitly provided
for in the TCC Guide.2
The circumstances whereby Confidentiality Rings are appropriate was considered in detail in the “Dieselgate” case of Aurora Cavallari and others v Mercedes-
Benz Group AG and others [2024] EWHC 190 (KB).
See Appendix H: TCC Guidance Note on Procedures for Public Procurement Cases of the TCC Guide.
