UPC CFI 927/2025

Defendants are entitled to have at least one natural person (Head of Legal) admitted to the confidentiality club; excluding all natural persons from defendants would violate their right to an effective remedy and fair trial

One Indian external counsel already engaged in the matter should be admitted to the confidentiality club because the defendants demonstrated that Indian counsel is part of the instruction chain for these proceedings

Auxiliary request limiting access to one named natural person per defendant who is not involved in competitive decision-making is proportionate

Primary request for 'external eyes only' / 'attorneys eyes only' regime — claimant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying exclusion of all natural persons from defendants

Confidential nature of MW21 and risk of conclusions being drawn are sufficient to justify external eyes only regime

Document only serves a 'limited procedural purpose' — defendants should not need natural person access

Two Indian counsel should be admitted to the confidentiality club

Experts, consultants and advisers should be granted access to unredacted MW21 upon request without naming specific persons in advance

Claimant itself and the Registry should be expressly named in the confidentiality order — claimant showed no legitimate interest in restricting its own access

Persons admitted to confidentiality club must return or destroy copies at end of proceedings

Defendants should bear costs of the R. 262a application proceedings