Wenda Company Limited (a company incorporated in China) v Wang Jihong & Ors

Third-party disclosure should be ordered where the documents sought are likely to support the applicant’s case or adversely affect another party’s case, and disclosure is necessary for the fair disposal of the claim or to save costs. Where those requirements are met, the court may exercise its discretion in favour of disclosure, particularly where the documents provide information unavailable from the applicant’s own records. Costs are assessed by reference to work that was reasonable and proportionate to carry out, and to a reasonable and proportionate amount for that work.

The claimant brought a fraud claim concerning the alleged misappropriation of invoice receipts handled by Syner Limited and associated defendants. It applied under CPR 31.17 for disclosure by HSBC Invoice Finance (UK) Ltd, which had provided invoice-discounting facilities. The requested records would show the invoices submitted, payments made, recipients and sums later received, enabling the claimant to quantify its loss.

HSBC did not consent to the application but did not oppose an order in the proposed terms. The court therefore had to determine whether the requirements for third-party disclosure were met and, separately, the appropriate costs payable to HSBC.

1. Application granted. The claimant’s application for third-party disclosure was made under CPR 31.17. The documents sought, broadly comprising statements of account relating to the invoice-financing facility, were likely to support the claimant’s case because they could establish the maximum amount received on its behalf and the resulting loss.
2. The documents were also relevant because they would identify what HSBC paid, to whom and when, and what sums were received from the defendants in respect of the claimant’s invoices. That information could not be established with comparable certainty merely by examining the claimant’s invoices.
3. The requirements of CPR 31.17 were satisfied. The court was satisfied that documents within the classes sought existed, that disclosure was likely to assist the claimant’s case, and that disclosure was necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or save costs. The court exercised its discretion in favour of making the order.
4. The claimant accepted liability for HSBC’s costs and agreed to summary assessment. The applicable principles required identification of work that it was reasonable and proportionate for HSBC to undertake, followed by assessment of a reasonable and proportionate sum for that work. The claimed communications and other work were not excessive in the circumstances. Costs were summarily assessed at £7,097.26.