Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Francesco Costa (Re Spring Media Investments Limited)

Granted Petitioner's application for further disclosure on various issues, including expanding the date range and adding search terms.

The substantial amendments to the pleadings justified the need for additional disclosure to cover the expanded timeframe and newly implicated individuals. The court considered the disclosure reasonable and proportionate, necessary for a just disposal of the case, and not a 'fishing expedition'.

Ordered Mr. Costa to provide details regarding access to an email account for potential further disclosure.

The court found insufficient evidence that the account was inaccessible or irrelevant to the proceedings, considering the timeframe and potential communication.

Refused Respondent's application for two new issues of disclosure.

New Issue 1 was deemed duplicative of existing disclosure orders; New Issue 2's requested date range was not supported by the pleadings, although the court granted a more focused order to address concerns about a lack of documentation regarding Mr. Loy's control of Saxon Woods.

Rejected the Company's assertion of privilege against disclosure.

The court found that the letters relied upon by the Company did not demonstrate a threat of hostile litigation against the Company. The threatened actions were seen as primarily against directors and other shareholders, making the Company a nominal defendant.