Lombard North Central Plc & Anor v Airbus Helicopters SAS

Disclosure issues in the Business and Property Courts should be formulated by reference to the pleaded issues where those issues are central and the formulation fairly captures their full scope. In a case involving alleged hidden design defects, relevant documents may include material created after the original design stage, because later events may reveal what was previously hidden. Model D disclosure may be appropriate where the issue is the central nub of the dispute and Model C categories would not fairly capture all necessary material. The court should focus Model D disclosure on the pleaded issue and allow the parties to refine relevance and search parameters proportionately.

This was the first case management conference in claims by Lombard North Central plc and NatWest Markets plc against Airbus Helicopters SAS concerning alleged defects in an H225 helicopter and related French-law and English-law liabilities.

The merits, limitation and construction issues had not yet been determined. The immediate applications concerned disclosure, including the scope of searches concerning other helicopter incidents and the appropriate disclosure model for central allegations concerning alleged fatigue fractures in gearbox planet gears and subsequent remedial action.

1. Disclosure concerning CHC knowledge. The claimants’ formulation for Issue 1(a) was preferred because it tracked the pleaded issues more closely than Airbus’s narrower formulation. The relevance of the G-REDW incident remained an issue on the pleadings, and the search could be made proportionate through appropriate custodians and search terms.
2. Scope of disclosure concerning alleged design defects. For Issue 4, the disclosure issue was appropriately formulated by reference to the pleaded allegation that the helicopter and H225 helicopters were defective because the second-stage planet gears were susceptible to fatigue fracture through their design or excessive serviceable life. A formulation limited to the defendant’s assessment at the design stage would not capture subsequent documents which might reveal a hidden defect.
3. Model D disclosure. Model D was ordered for Issues 4, 5 and 6. The Pilot Scheme was not a return to old standard-disclosure practices, but a flexible framework. Model C was not sufficient where the dispute concerned a central issue and the proposed categories were expansive but still might not capture all documents necessary for a fair determination. The approach was consistent with the guidance discussed in McParland & Partners v Whitehead [2020] EWHC 298 (Ch).
4. Issue 7. Issue 7 was to be defined by reference to the pleaded defects and whether Airbus had taken adequate steps to remedy them. It was also a central allegation, so Model D disclosure was appropriate. Any remaining disagreement about relevance should first be addressed between the parties and, if necessary, through targeted requests for specific disclosure.