Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

UK Supreme Court grants KBR Inc. leave to appeal against controversial decision on extraterritorial effect of Section 2 Notices

By Neil O’May (UK), Andrew Reeves (UK), Chloe Fryer & Thomas Hubbard (UK) on May 30, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On 8 April 2019, the UK Supreme Court granted KBR Inc. leave to appeal against a decision that allows the SFO to compel certain foreign companies to hand over documents held overseas. The Supreme Court’s decision was published on 23 May 2019 (see here).

KBR Inc. is appealing the judgment in R (on the application of KBR Inc) v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2018] EWHC 2012 (Admin) (KBR v SFO), in which the Administrative Court held that section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (CJA), which (broadly) gives the SFO power to require a person to produce specified documents in connection with an SFO investigation, has certain extra-territorial effect. The Court held that section 2(3) CJA operates with extra-territorial effect to compel a foreign company to produce documents held outside the jurisdiction where there is a ‘sufficient connection between the company and the jurisdiction’ (even though no such test is included in the statute). The Court also indicated that a section 2(3) notice can be used to compel a UK company to produce documents that are held on a server outside of the jurisdiction. For more information on this decision, please see here our blog on the case.

The decision in KBR v SFO was controversial and roundly criticised for seeking to support UK authorities’ assertion of extraterritorial information-gathering powers by applying a wholly purposive and contextual interpretation to the legislation granting those powers. The decision has had an impact beyond SFO investigations because the ‘sufficient connection’ test has been applied to give extraterritorial effect to certain of HMRC’s powers  see here).

Photo of Neil O’May (UK) Neil O’May (UK)
Read more about Neil O’May (UK)Email
Photo of Andrew Reeves (UK) Andrew Reeves (UK)
Read more about Andrew Reeves (UK)Email
Photo of Chloe Fryer Chloe Fryer
Read more about Chloe FryerEmail
Photo of Thomas Hubbard (UK) Thomas Hubbard (UK)
Read more about Thomas Hubbard (UK)Email
  • Posted in:
    Corporate Governance and Compliance
  • Blog:
    Global Regulation Tomorrow
  • Organization:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo