Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor HotelServices UK Limited
[2024] EWHC 941 (TCC)
Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited
8 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1238 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies were fighting in court. One company (Lloyds) messed up a court filing, so they have to pay the other company's (Accor) legal fees. There was also confusion over some messages, so a neutral party will check them. A request for more documents was rejected because they weren't important to the case.
Key Facts
- •Lloyds Developments Limited (Claimant) applied for an extension of time to comply with an unless order, doing so in a manner deemed unsatisfactory by the court.
- •Accor Hotel Services UK Limited (Defendant) applied for judgment to be entered due to Lloyds' non-compliance.
- •Lloyds disclosed WhatsApp messages in a 'muddled' and incomprehensible format.
- •Accor sought disclosure of documents mentioned in Mr. Jacobs' witness statements.
- •A dispute arose over costs associated with Accor's Particulars of Non-Compliance (PNC) document.
Legal Principles
Costs normally follow the event; however, the court retains discretion to deviate from this rule.
Court's inherent jurisdiction over costs
CPR Part 27.3 requires applications to be served as soon as practicable.
Civil Procedure Rules, Part 27.3
Practice Direction 57AD, paragraph 17.1, allows the court to order witness statements explaining disclosure matters.
Practice Direction 57AD, paragraph 17.1
Practice Direction 57AD, paragraph 21, allows requests for documents mentioned in witness statements; reasonableness and proportionality are key considerations.
Practice Direction 57AD, paragraph 21
Costs 'of and occasioned by' amendments do not encompass all costs of a document, but rather the additional costs incurred due to the amendment.
Interpretation of court order regarding costs of amendments
Outcomes
Lloyds to pay Accor's costs for the application for extension of time.
Lloyds' unsatisfactory conduct in making the application.
Lloyds to not pay Accor's costs for the application for judgment to be entered.
While Accor's actions were understandable, ordering these costs would go too far.
Independent solicitors to review Lloyds' WhatsApp messages.
Concerns about confirmation bias due to previous inadequate redactions.
Lloyds to provide a witness statement explaining the SMS and WhatsApp message searches, and the creation of the disclosed document.
To comply with PD 57AD, paragraph 17.1.
Accor's request for disclosure of documents mentioned in Mr. Jacobs' witness statements denied.
The documents are irrelevant to the substance of the action and lack probative value.
No order made for payment of costs relating to the Particulars of Non-Compliance (PNC).
The costs were implicitly addressed by Mr. Justice Waksman's previous order, and the request for immediate payment is unusual.
Similar Cases
Irwell Riverside Developments Limited v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited
[2023] EWHC 2864 (TCC)
J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Soltuions Limited
[2023] EWHC 301 (TCC)
Excelerate Technology Limited v West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS University Foundation Trust & Anor
[2024] EWHC 177 (TCC)
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)