Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly known as Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) & Ors v Peter Miles Bosworth & Ors
[2024] EWHC 574 (Comm)
Cardiff City Football Club Limited v William Arthur McKay & Ors
31 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 2953 (KB)
High Court
A football club sued for information, and the other side didn't fully comply with a court order to hand over documents. The club wanted a neutral lawyer to check, but the judge said that was too much. Instead, the judge ordered the other side's lawyers to double-check their work on some specific documents. The judge trusted the lawyers would do it right this time.
Key Facts
- •Cardiff City Football Club (CCFC) sought information from the McKays regarding the transfer of Emiliano Sala.
- •A Tomlin order (7 February 2024) settled Part 8 proceedings, requiring document disclosure.
- •The McKays failed to disclose documents by the deadline, leading to further court orders.
- •A Delivery Up Order (22 March 2024) established a procedure for document retrieval and review by the defendants' solicitors.
- •CCFC alleged non-compliance and sought an independent barrister to review the disclosed documents.
- •The court considered whether an independent review was justified given the defendants' efforts and the time constraints.
Legal Principles
The disclosing party typically carries out the disclosure exercise, applying a relevance test, with an assumption of good faith.
A v B [2019] 1 WLR 5832
The court has inherent jurisdiction to appoint a supervising solicitor to ensure disclosure obligations are fulfilled, but this is exceptional and requires strong grounds.
Nolan Family Partnership v Walsh [2011] EWHC 535 (Comm); Vilca v Xstrata [2016] EWHC 1824 (QB)
Depriving a defendant of the opportunity to consider disclosure is intrusive and contrary to normal principles of justice, requiring a paramount need to prevent a denial of justice.
CBS Butler Ltd v Brown [2013] EWHC 3944 (QB)
A graduated response and proportionality are necessary when addressing disclosure issues.
Lock International plc v Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268
Factors to consider when deciding on an independent review include the purpose of disclosure, significance of documents, alternative means of addressing issues, extent of review, degree of intrusion, and cost.
Terre Neuve SARL v Yewdale Ltd [2023] EWHC 677 (Comm)
Outcomes
The court dismissed CCFC's application for an independent barrister review.
The court found that the defendants' solicitors' review, while containing some imperfections, was not sufficiently defective to warrant such an intrusive order. The number of genuinely disputed documents was minimal (three out of eighteen), and the court deemed a full review disproportionate.
The defendants' solicitors were ordered to review 18 specific documents again, applying the correct legal tests and providing a witness statement outlining their findings.
This was deemed a more proportionate response to address the remaining concerns and ensure compliance while avoiding the significant cost and intrusion of an independent review.