O'Neill v AVIC International (UK) Ltd

Disclosure must be confined to documents relevant to the issues for trial and proportionate to those issues. Documents directed solely to the general credibility of witnesses, or to wide allegations of dishonesty having no substantial bearing on the pleaded issues, are not ordinarily disclosable. A party may obtain limited success by prompting further disclosure, but that does not justify an otherwise excessive application. The court may reflect that limited success in its costs order while dismissing the substantive application.

The claimant sought further disclosure in a fee claim arising from his alleged agreement with the defendant concerning the Rolleston Project. He alleged that he had played a central role in resolving an issue concerning Ofgem subsidy entitlement and claimed an agreed fee calculated by reference to the project’s gross development value.

The defendant disputed the existence of the agreement, the claimant’s alleged importance to the resolution of the issue, and the valuation basis for the fee. The claimant also made wide allegations of dishonesty and corruption against individuals associated with the defendant. The application concerned the scope and sufficiency of disclosure before trial.

1. The substantive application was dismissed. The central issues for trial were what had been agreed in May 2015, what role the claimant had played in resolving the Rolleston Project issue, and the relevant gross development value.
2. Disclosure had to be assessed by reference to documents of genuine relevance to those issues and to proportionality. The defendant’s disclosure was not shown to be deficient in the wholesale manner alleged.
3. The claimant’s wider allegations of dishonesty and corruption were, on the material available at the interlocutory hearing, peripheral or almost entirely peripheral to the real issues. Documents going only to the credibility of potential witnesses were not documents required to be disclosed. The extent to which questioning about credibility might be permitted at trial was a matter for the trial judge.
4. An application may generate some additional disclosure without being substantively justified. Here, the defendant had provided further documentation following the claimant’s application, including material which the claimant considered important, but that limited success did not warrant granting the application.
5. The claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of the hearing, summarily assessed in the formal order at £4,452. Other costs of the application were costs in the case.