William Clark Partnership Ltd v Dock ST PCT Ltd

An application made shortly before trial for specific disclosure and permission to rely on new expert evidence must be properly justified. Although the requested material may relate in general terms to pleaded issues, the court must assess its significance, the extent of the proposed investigation, delay, cost, and the impact on the trial timetable. Detailed financial analysis is not warranted where the issue is not central to the case and existing disclosure is sufficient to address the relevant question. The application may therefore be refused as disproportionate and distracting.

The claimant, a quantity surveying and project management firm, sought payment of outstanding invoices. The defendant counterclaimed for professional negligence, alleging that the claimant’s breaches contributed to a project cost overrun and the defendant’s inability to meet payments to the contractor.

At a late stage before trial, the claimant applied for specific disclosure of further financial information concerning Aviva funding, bank transactions, director’s loan accounts and related accounts. It also sought permission to rely on a forensic accountant’s evidence. The central issue was whether the proposed investigation was sufficiently relevant and significant to justify the additional disclosure, expert evidence, cost and delay.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant was required to justify its late application for specific disclosure and permission to rely on expert evidence, particularly as no such permission had been sought or granted at the case management conference.
2. The defendant’s financial position, its intended use of the Aviva funds and its position when the settlement with the contractor was made were relevant in general terms to breach and causation. However, they were not a key issue requiring an intensive further investigation.
3. The case did not require a detailed, transaction-by-transaction analysis of the defendant’s finances. The bank statements already disclosed would demonstrate, if necessary, whether the defendant lacked funds to settle with the contractor. The proposed requests for all payments from a working account over three years, movements in loan accounts and information from further accounts were not limited exercises.
4. The court was entitled to consider the application’s lateness, the extended pre-trial process, the work and cost imposed on the defendant, the possible need for responsive expert evidence, and the risk that a contentious forensic accounting exercise would disrupt the tight trial timetable.
5. Specific disclosure was refused and permission to rely on forensic accountancy evidence was not granted. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the application, subject to detailed assessment after trial or further order, and to make an interim payment on account of £2,500.