Peak Hotels And Resorts Limited v Tarek Investments Limited & Ors

Requests for further information under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 18 must be concise and confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable a party to prepare its case or understand the case it must meet. The court must also apply the overriding objective. Clarification may be ordered where a pleaded allegation requires definition, but requests seeking detailed analysis, expert conclusions or information already sufficiently provided should be refused. Proportionality also governs disclosure searches, privilege-related inquiries and the timing of compliance.

The claimant, Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited, faced applications concerning disclosure, privilege and redaction, security for costs, and further information. The court considered proposed searches for communications, the sufficiency of explanations concerning privileged documents, and requests relating to refinancing and servicing of the Pontwelly loan, including alleged Chapter 11 consequences. The judgment determined the first three applications and addressed related costs issues, while a specific disclosure application remained to be dealt with separately.

1. Disclosure searches. The court fixed 1 July 2013 as the start date for one search because it had originally been proposed by the claimant and extending it back to 2010 would impose a disproportionate burden. Searches for text messages were confined to communications between the central protagonists, but the start date was extended to 1 April 2014 because the additional period was directly relevant and not unduly onerous. The agreed search terms for further searches were sufficient.
2. Privilege and redaction. The evidence of the relevant solicitors was sufficient. Apart from one document which appeared not to fall within the stated categories, there was no proper basis for requiring further steps or going behind that evidence.
3. Further information. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 18 and paragraph 1.2 of the Practice Direction to Part 18, a request must be concise and strictly confined to matters reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable preparation of a party’s own case or understanding of the case to be met. The overriding objective applied. Applying the approach discussed in Lexi Holdings (in administration) v Pannone and Partners [2010] EWHC 1416 (Ch), the court ordered clarification of efforts to refinance the Pontwelly loan beyond those pleaded. It refused more detailed requests identifying possible lenders and terms as unnecessary and disproportionate, and treated the issue as appropriate for expert evidence.
4. Further information about how the loan could have been serviced was necessary and proportionate after disclosure, but the proposed order was excessive and required refinement. Information concerning the New York court’s jurisdiction and the possible variation of interest rates and timing was already sufficient, including the reference to the United States Bankruptcy Code and fair market terms.
5. The successful applicants obtained costs orders, but costs were assessed or limited to reflect partial success, excessive hourly rates, concessions and the overall balance of the applications. The claimant’s costs applications were ultimately subject to no order as to costs.