Euro-Asian Oil SA v Abilo (UK) Ltd & Anor

Disclosure under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 31.14, requires the document sought to be relevant to an issue that is actually pleaded, or to an amendment whose relevance is apparent. A reference to transactions, or to commercial terms such as CIF or “in tank”, does not necessarily amount to a direct allusion or specific mention of a document. Where the proposed evidential material cannot logically support the pleaded inference, the court may refuse disclosure, while leaving open a renewed application following a properly framed amendment.

Euro-Asian Oil SA sought disclosure from Abilo (UK) Ltd and Mr Dan Igniska in connection with its claim concerning four transactions involving ROD and external suppliers. The proposed disclosure was said to support an inference pleaded in the amended defence concerning the true nature of the parties’ relationship after Abilo was interposed. Credit Suisse AG appeared on the application; the first and second defendants did not.

The issue was whether the material was relevant to a pleaded or clearly identifiable issue and whether rule 31.14 was engaged by references to the transactions and their terms.

1. Application refused. The material sought was not relevant to an issue currently pleaded, nor to an issue that would obviously become relevant upon a technical amendment.
2. The history between Euro-Asian and the Igniska companies, when Euro-Asian was seller and the Igniska companies were buyer, was consistent with the relationship concerning the four transactions between Euro-Asian and ROD. It therefore did not logically support the inference relied upon in paragraph 1(5) of the amended defence and the further information.
3. The relevant question was the true nature of the relationship after Abilo had been interposed between the external suppliers and Euro-Asian. Material concerning the relationship between the external sellers and Abilo, as purchaser from those sellers, did not establish the pleaded inference about Abilo’s role as seller to Euro-Asian.
4. Rule 31.14 was not engaged. Applying the approach in Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] 1 WLR 1099, references to the transactions were not a direct allusion or specific mention of a document. Identifying commercial terms such as CIF or “in tank” did not convert those references into a specific mention.
5. A renewed application could be made if a properly drafted amendment established the relevance of the material. No disclosure order was made.