United Petroleum Trading Switzerland SA v Mitro International Ltd

On an interim information application, the court may tailor disclosure to the information needed for effective short-term case management. A broad request for extensive documentation should be rejected where it exceeds what is proportionate to the immediate issues. The court may instead require focused documents or concise statements relating to particular payments and transactions. Where both parties have obtained some, but not all, of the relief sought, and a hearing was necessary to secure further material, the appropriate costs order may be no order as to costs.

The claimant sought extensive information from the defendant during the period before the return date of 21 May 2019. The application concerned payments and transactions said to be in the ordinary course of business, including payments exceeding $250,000, and information relating to salary payments and service contracts.

The court considered the level of distrust between the parties and the information required for effective management of the interim period. It rejected the breadth of the claimant’s request but required limited further documentation and information from the defendant.

1. Application substantially refused. The claimant’s request for information was too broad and was rejected insofar as it sought extensive documentation, including a general requirement concerning future payments exceeding $250,000.
2. Focused information required. The defendant was required to provide the relevant service contracts. In relation to salary payments connected with the JAA or JOA business, it was required to provide either a contemporaneous invoice, worksheet or budget entry identifying the payments, or, failing that, a short statement ideally identifying the payments employee by employee.
3. For any further payment or payments before 21 May 2019 said to be in the ordinary proper course of business and exceeding $250,000, the defendant was required to give advance notice and provide limited documentation. That documentation was to include the relevant contract and an invoice or other document showing that the contract had engaged at the relevant time and for the particular amount.
4. The order was directed to managing the immediate period and the atmosphere of mistrust between the parties. The court also indicated that reasonable requests for information between the parties, including through their legal teams, should be answered promptly.
5. Costs. There was no order as to costs. The claimant had sought too much to justify an order in its favour, but the hearing had been necessary for further material to be provided, so the defendant was not awarded its costs either.