WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP

Where a party reasonably and urgently needs information to formulate its own response to a regulatory charge, an order for information may extend beyond objective facts. It may require the counterparty to state an evaluative view where that view depends partly on matters within the counterparty’s exclusive knowledge and is relevant to the contractual allocation of responsibility. The order should make clear that the respondent provides information enabling the applicant to formulate its own defence or representations. It does not require the respondent to prepare or advance that defence, and the respondent may qualify or explain its answer to protect its position.

The applicants had obtained interim relief ex parte against E20 Stadium LLP. The matter was returned to the High Court the following day so that E20 could challenge the relief after having an opportunity to make focused submissions.

The dispute concerned information sought by the applicants in connection with an FA charge, including questions about stewarding arrangements and the strategy adopted to prevent or deter a pitch incursion. E20 accepted that objective factual information about stewarding and the implementation of recommendations could properly be requested. It disputed any obligation to provide evaluative judgments about the appropriateness or adequacy of its stewarding strategy.

1. Order recast. The order was to be amended to make clear that E20’s role was to provide information enabling the applicants to formulate their own defence or representations to the FA charge. E20 was not required to provide representations or a defence on the applicants’ behalf.
2. Meaning of information. The obligation was not confined to objective facts. The applicants could ask E20 whether it considered that its strategy to prevent or deter a pitch incursion was appropriate.
3. Reasoning. The question was relevant because the applicants reasonably and urgently needed the answer to decide how to deal with the charge. The answer depended partly on matters solely within E20’s knowledge. Clause 24.2 of the contract placed responsibility on E20 to ensure compliance with governing-body requirements concerning stewards. That contractual allocation made E20’s assessment of the suitability or appropriateness of its stewarding materially relevant.
4. Limits on the response. E20 was not restricted to answering yes or no. It could provide details, qualifications or explanations to protect its position, or give only a yes-or-no answer if it chose.
5. The interim relief was maintained in the recast form, with E20 required to answer the relevant questions.

The judgment records that relief had been granted ex parte on the preceding day and that the matter was returned to the High Court for E20 to contest the order. The court maintained the relief in amended form.