Manchester Shipping Ltd v Balfour Shipping Ltd & Anor

In case management, disclosure must be tailored to the pleaded issues and remain reasonable and proportionate. Model C disclosure was ordered where documents were needed to trace diverted charter hire, payments under disputed charterparties, dealings with an assignee, or funds received and paid away. Model D, rather than Model E, was appropriate for dishonest-assistance allegations because other disclosure already ordered reduced the need for wider inquiry. Publicly available insolvency material did not require further disclosure. The court also confirmed that the pleaded dishonesty case extended beyond one particular paragraph and that the relevant disclosure period ran to 31 December 2018.

The claimant brought claims arising from the admitted diversion of charter hire by the defendants. The remaining issues included causation and quantum, the effect of an assignment, breach of trust, and dishonest assistance. Following an earlier case management conference, the court determined outstanding wording for the Case Memorandum and List of Issues and ruled on disclosure requests made by both sides.

The principal questions were whether the requested documents were relevant and proportionate to the pleaded issues, what disclosure model should apply, whether publicly available material required disclosure, and the appropriate date range.

1. Pleaded dishonesty. The dishonesty case was not confined to paragraph 50G.2 of the Re-Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim. Other pleaded allegations, including those in paragraphs 19, 19A.1, 46.5(a), 48H.2(a) and 48L.1, remained live and were matters for investigation at trial.
2. Claimant’s disclosure requests. Disclosure of correspondence with KGK representatives was ordered because it could assist in locating diverted charter hire. Model C disclosure was ordered for documents concerning the Balfour charterparties and bank statements, limited to documents evidencing payments under those charterparties. Wider requests concerning the use of money received from MARIS were well founded and also justified Model C disclosure.
3. Material arising from KGK’s insolvency proceedings was not ordered because it was publicly available and the claimant had not shown that it had accessed the identified websites. Requests concerning L-Caspiy and the Russian Interior Ministry were disallowed where no pleaded issue was identified. Disclosure concerning the alleged execution and communication of charterparties, and documents relating to the dishonest-assistance claim, was ordered to the extent agreed or justified by the pleaded issues.
4. Defendants’ disclosure requests. Bank-statement entries relating to both L-Caspiy and KGK were to remain unredacted, since the defendants should be able to investigate whether the payments related to the debts in issue. Disclosure concerning the assignment, the relationship between Mr Baranov and L-Caspiy, and the destination of funds paid to L-Caspiy was ordered as relevant to the pleaded issues.
5. Disclosure model and proportionality. Model D disclosure, rather than Model E, was appropriate for the dishonest-assistance claim. The court considered the disclosure already ordered and applied the requirement in paragraph 6.4 of PD51U that Extended Disclosure be reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the overriding objective, including expeditious, fair and proportionate conduct of the case.
6. The disclosure period for the specified categories relating to issues 6 and 24 was fixed from 1 June 2016 to 31 December 2018. The case memorandum and list of issues were settled in the forms attached to the judgment.