Authorised push payment (APP) fraud remains to pose a significant risk for businesses, with funds often disappearing in minutes unless urgent legal action is taken.  In such cases, swift action is often the difference between recovering misappropriated funds and losing them altogether. The High Court’s recent decision in Babco Chemicals Inc v HSBC UK Bank PLC [2025] EWHC 1749 (Comm) offers an interesting insight into the use of Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs), which provide urgent pre-action relief, and how this balances against standard disclosure.
The Case
In Babco, the claimant alleged it had fallen victim to APP fraud, with funds being transferred into an HSBC account. Babco successfully obtained an NPO and a Bankers Books order for records, subject to an undertaking that the material would be used solely for tracing assets or pursuing fraudsters. As the dispute progressed, in separate pre-action proceedings, Babco advanced broader claims against HSBC including restitution, conspiracy, and breach of duty in which they sought to vary the initial undertaking so the documents could be used to support their claim against HSBC.
On 9 July 2025, the High Court agreed to discharge the undertaking subject to Babco taking a more limited undertaking. The judge noted that, if Babco’s claims against HSBC went forward, the same documents would likely be produced through the ordinary disclosure process. The case illustrates how disclosure and urgent relief interact in fraud claims, and how the strategic use of disclosure may open up new avenues of claim.
Which method should be relied upon?
- Norwich Pharmacal Orders: Typically directed at third parties such as banks, NPOs are designed for speed. They provide information to identify wrongdoers and trace assets before they disappear. Applicants must show a good arguable case and that the relief sought is necessary.
- Disclosure: Governed by CPR Part 31, disclosure requires parties to exchange relevant documents during proceedings. While slower, it guarantees a more comprehensive evidential picture, ensuring fairness and transparency as disputes unfold.
The Babco ruling underscores how the two processes complement each other. NPOs open the door to urgent evidence in the early stages, while disclosure fills out the evidential record as the case advances.
Practical Lessons for Commercial Disputes
- Act fast: In commercial fraud, where funds can be moved across accounts in minutes, NPOs are an essential first step.
- Plan for disclosure: Courts recognise that documents obtained under an NPO will usually resurface in standard disclosure, reducing the risk of evidential gaps.
- Adapt strategy: As claims evolve, parties may seek to vary undertakings restricting NPO use, but judicial approval will always be required.
- Balance risk and cost: Poorly framed NPO applications can fail and attract adverse costs, while disclosure carries its own cost and compliance risks.
- Combine tools: The most effective approach integrates urgent relief through NPOs with the structured process of disclosure to build a strong case for trial.
Conclusion
The decision in Babco highlights the importance of using NPOs and disclosure in tandem when tackling commercial fraud disputes. NPOs give businesses the speed and agility needed to protect assets, while disclosure ensures fairness and completeness as litigation progresses. For businesses facing fraud, using these tools in tandem can be decisive in protecting assets and securing recovery.
Taking the next step – Contact our expert Litigation & Dispute Resolution team
Whether you are responding to APP fraud or considering litigation, timely access to the right documents can make all the difference. Our Litigation & Dispute Resolution team, led on this area by Joel Cukier, can advise you on disclosure and Norwich Pharmacal Orders.
📞 0207 387 2032
Or alternatively, please complete our online enquiry form.