Al Khattiya, The Owners of the Ship v JAG LAADKI, The Owners of the Ship

Information or documents may be ordered before statements of case where they are reasonably required for the fair disposal of a stay application. The court must assess the actual needs of the venue application, rather than assume that detailed evidence about the merits is required. Proportionality and confidentiality do not prevent an order where the material is limited, readily available and necessary to avoid procedural unfairness. A document referred to in witness evidence may be subject to inspection under CPR 31.14(1)(b). Where inspection is ordered, the court may make a protective order under CPR 31.22(2).

The owners of Al Khattiya claimed approximately US $30 million from the owners or demise charterers of Jag Laadki following a collision. Liability was admitted. The defendants sought a stay in favour of the UAE courts and applied for information and documents concerning the claim, arguing that these were needed to assess the stay application fairly.

The application concerned whether detailed loss information was reasonably required for consideration of forum, and whether the charterparty referred to in witness evidence had to be provided under CPR 31.14(1)(b).

1. The application was allowed only to the limited extent of ordering provision of a copy of the Al Khattiya charterparty under CPR 31.14(1)(b). The remainder of the application was dismissed.
2. Information or documents may be ordered before statements of case where they are reasonably required for the fair disposal of a stay application. The court must examine what is needed for the venue issue itself. Detailed evidence about the asserted losses was not reasonably necessary here because the connecting factors to the UAE and other jurisdictions were already identified, and the applicable-law issue could be addressed through suitable UAE legal evidence.
3. The unusual timing of an order does not prevent relief where fairness requires it. Proportionality and confidentiality were insufficient objections because the material sought was limited and readily available, and refusing relief could leave the defendants having to contest venue with inadequate information.
4. The approach in Vava v Anglo American South Africa Ltd [2012] EWHC 1969 (QB), where early specific disclosure was ordered to ensure fair resolution of a forum question, was adopted and applied.
5. References in witness statements to the vessel being on a 25-year time charter were references to a written charterparty, not merely to a transaction. CPR 31.14(1)(b) was therefore engaged. The claimants could not avoid inspection by providing only a heavily redacted copy. A protective order under CPR 31.22(2) was made, with CPR 31.22(1) continuing to apply.

not stated in the judgment.