## Facts

- X AG and Z Co. were Swiss-centered companies with no U.S. business presence; their records were kept in Switzerland.
- Y AG was Swiss-incorporated but maintained a major office in New York; it also operated from Switzerland.
- A Bank was incorporated and headquartered in New York and operated a London branch where Y maintained an account; the relevant account documents were held in London.
- New York authorities issued subpoenas to the bank’s New York head office seeking documents about X’s, Y’s, and Z’s London-branch accounts.
- The bank asserted that the customer relationships were part of an international relationship managed from New York and that it was compelled to comply with U.S. process.
- The customers asserted the bank-customer relationship (and expectations of confidentiality) was centered on the London branch and governed by English banking confidentiality standards.
- The customers sued in the Queen’s Bench Division for an injunction restraining the London branch from producing the London-held documents in response to the U.S. subpoenas; an interim injunction had been granted pending further decision.

## Issues

1. Whether an English court should continue an injunction restraining a London branch from complying with U.S. subpoenas directed to the bank’s New York head office for documents held in London.
2. Whether the disclosure demanded by foreign process would breach duties of confidentiality arising under English law governing the London branch’s bank-customer relationship.
3. How comity and the risk of foreign sanctions should be weighed against enforcing English-law contractual and confidentiality obligations.

## Decision

- The Queen’s Bench Division continued the injunction (with refinements) restraining the London branch from disclosing the requested documents and information.
- The court treated the relevant obligations as substantive duties arising from the London branch’s customer relationship, rather than as a matter controlled by the foreign subpoena alone.
- The bank’s exposure to U.S. compulsion and possible sanctions did not, by itself, displace the English-law duties owed by the London branch to its customers regarding London-held records.

## Legal Principles

- An English court may restrain disclosure by an English branch of a foreign bank when foreign subpoenas would require production of documents held in England and disclosure would breach English-law confidentiality obligations.
- The governing law of a branch-level bank-customer relationship is generally the law of the place where the branch account is maintained and operated, notwithstanding head-office location or internal management arrangements.
- Foreign legal compulsion may be relevant to equitable discretion but does not automatically justify breaching English-law duties or require English courts to yield enforcement of local contractual and confidentiality rights.
- In granting or continuing injunctive relief, courts may balance (i) the customer’s confidentiality interests and expectations under English law, (ii) the bank’s risk of foreign sanctions, and (iii) domestic public policy favoring protection of the bank-customer duty of confidence.

## Conclusion

The court maintained injunctive protection for customers of a London bank branch against disclosure compelled by U.S. subpoenas served on the bank’s New York head office, holding that English-law confidentiality duties tied to London-held account documents could justify restraining compliance despite competing foreign legal demands.


X AG v. A Bank, [1983] 2 All E.R. 464 (Q.B.)