SFL Ace 2 Company Inc. v DCW Management Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3074 (Comm)
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance & Anor v Kroll Advisory Ltd
26 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 1255 (Comm)
High Court
Two insurance companies wanted documents from two administrators to figure out if they owed more money based on a settlement. The judge said they could get the documents, but the insurance companies had to pay the administrators' legal fees for providing them.
Key Facts
- •Two insurance companies (Claimants) sought non-party disclosure orders against two administrators (Respondents), officers of the defendant, Kroll Advisory Ltd.
- •Kroll had professional indemnity insurance with the Claimants, covering costs incurred by its officers.
- •Respondents were involved in criminal proceedings related to their role as administrators of Glasgow Rangers Football Club, which were later discontinued.
- •A settlement agreement between Claimants and Kroll involved a £4.7 million payment for defence costs, with a clause requiring Kroll to account for any damages awarded to Respondents in subsequent proceedings against the Scottish prosecuting authorities.
- •Respondents settled their claims against the Scottish authorities, and Claimants believe this triggered Kroll's obligation to pay under the settlement agreement.
- •Kroll contends that the settlements did not include amounts for defence costs, leading to the Claimants' application for non-party disclosure.
- •The application for non-party disclosure is made before Kroll serves its defence.
Legal Principles
Principles governing applications under CPR 31.17 for non-party disclosure.
CPR 31.17, Mr Hollander KC’s Documentary Evidence (14th) at [3.04], Re: Bugsby Properties LLC v LGIM Commercial Lending Ltd [2021] 1054 (Comm), [15]-[23], Twin Benefits v Barker [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch) at 33.
CPR 31.17 order can be made before the other party's statement of case is served if a key difference has already emerged.
Abbas v Yousef [2014] EWHC 662 (QB)
The court considers the overriding objective and overall justice of the case when deciding on non-party disclosure applications.
CPR
Outcomes
The court granted the non-party disclosure order.
The documents sought are relevant to assessing how the settlement figure was arrived at and interpreting the settlement agreements. There is no other readily available means to obtain the information. The court rejected arguments that the application was premature or that the claimants' case was weak.
Claimants ordered to pay Mr. Clark's costs of complying with the order.
This is the usual rule in non-party disclosure applications, and the court didn't find sufficient reason to depart from it given the sensitive nature of the underlying litigation and the confidentiality obligations involved.
Similar Cases
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)
My Protection Guru Limited v Lifesearch Partners Limited
[2023] EWHC 2573 (Comm)
Lowry Trading Limited & Anor v Musicalize Ltd & Ors (No 2)
[2024] EWHC 773 (Comm)
Kindertons Limited v Georgina Murtagh & Anor
[2024] EWHC 471 (KB)