Işbilen v Turk: High Court orders third party disclosure of Bulgarian group emails held in England

The High Court has ordered two Bulgarian companies to disclose emails held by an English service provider, finding the jurisdictional thresholds met and rejecting objections based on lateness, confidentiality and foreign regulation.

In Işbilen v Turk & Ors [2026] EWHC 2635 (BP), Mr Justice Adam Johnson allowed an application under section 34 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 31.17. It was heard on 6 October 2026, about five weeks before pre-reading began for an 11-week trial on 16 November.

The claimant alleges that a former adviser misused some US$90m entrusted to him, and that Hanson Asset Management Ltd dishonestly assisted, including through a €28m transfer to a Cayman fund in April 2017 while Hanson was being absorbed into a corporate group that included the respondents, EuroHold Bulgaria AD and Euro-Finance AD. Four senior employees of the Bulgarian companies have also served as Hanson directors, using group email addresses.

The resulting data, some 225,000 documents, was transferred to Interpath in England to support a review that ultimately led to 28 documents being disclosed by Hanson. Letters of Request under the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention yielded little. The Bulgarian companies left the data with Interpath, which exposed them to section 34 following Gorbachev v Gouriev [2022] EWCA Civ 1720, where the Court of Appeal held that documents within the jurisdiction are caught even if their owner is abroad.

The order, resisted by the respondents and supported by Hanson and the adviser, targets documents responding to key word searches. After the claimant dropped two search terms, the maximum number of potentially responsive documents fell to 1,569.

On CPR 31.17(3)(a), the respondents argued that each key word created a class and that not every document in a class could be shown to be likely to support the claimant's case. The judge applied Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 4), under which "likely" means "may well", the exercise is one of prediction and the test is applied when the application is made. It does not matter that some documents in a class later prove unhelpful. He rejected reliance on the low proportion of documents disclosed after the Hanson review, which was conducted by a party in different circumstances. The key words all tied back to the alleged joint venture involving the adviser, his business partner and the Bulgarian companies, so the threshold was met.

Necessity under CPR 31.17(3)(b) was also made out. The judge pointed to allegations of large-scale fraud, an asymmetry of information between the claimant and the defendants, and a fragmentary documentary record, illustrated by a disputed proposal to fund a Spanish healthcare investment. Fairness, he said, required decisions to rest on the best documentary record achievable, and the material was more than mere background for cross-examination.

On discretion, the respondents said a full relevance review in the manner of Practice Direction 57AD would be needed, with delay and risks under Bulgarian confidentiality and market abuse rules. The judge held that this confused the approach required of a party with that applying to a third party, who cannot be expected to master the issues. Relevance is governed by CPR 31.17(3)(a), and a respondent may exercise reasonable judgement and assert a right or duty to withhold inspection under CPR 31.17(4)(b)(ii). Citing Gorbachev, he added that ordering production of documents located in England breaches neither sovereignty nor comity, and a respondent cannot impose its own relevance test. Confidentiality obligations remain relevant, but their weight had been overstated. The claimant has offered to pay the respondents' costs on the standard basis.

The lateness of the application was treated as regrettable but not decisive. New material will need the court's permission under PD 57AD, any late amendments will face caution, and production can proceed in tranches to all parties simultaneously. The judge gave limited weight to the complaint of opportunism, and found it reasonable for the claimant to await the Letters of Request process, which concluded on 22 July.

The parties were encouraged to agree the form of order.