Kausar Raja v Terry Godrick McMillan

An order for further information under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 18.1, requires more than relevance. The request must concern a disputed matter and be strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the requesting party to prepare its case or understand the case it has to meet. If those thresholds are met, the court exercises a case-management discretion having regard to the likely benefit, cost, available resources and the overriding objective. Requests seeking evidence or documents ordinarily belong to disclosure or witness statements. A properly pleaded claim need not be expanded where the information sought may emerge through disclosure, particularly in a complex fraud claim.

The defendant applied for further information under CPR 18.1 concerning the claimant’s pleaded claims in deceit and unlawful means conspiracy, including the identity and intentions of alleged conspirators and the details of bridging loans supporting the loss claim. He also sought strike-out relief if the information was not provided.

The claim had survived an earlier strike-out and summary-judgment application and an appeal, but those decisions did not determine the separate Part 18 question. The central issue was whether the requests were strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the defendant to prepare his case or understand the case he had to meet.

The application was refused. The court held:

1. Threshold conditions. Each request concerned a matter in dispute. The first threshold under CPR 18.1 was therefore satisfied. The further threshold was whether the request was strictly confined to matters reasonably necessary and proportionate for preparing the defendant’s case or understanding it.
2. Case-management discretion. If those threshold conditions were met, the power remained discretionary. It had to be exercised in the context of overall case management, taking account of likely benefit, cost, financial resources and the overriding objective.
3. Requests concerning the conspiracy. The defendant had sufficient information to understand the pleaded case. The earlier judgments had considered the pleading adequate for trial, and further details might emerge through disclosure. It would be wrong effectively to pre-judge disclosure or restrict the pleading by requiring information which the claimant might not yet possess. The opportunity to trace witnesses was not, in the circumstances, a sufficient benefit to justify the orders.
4. Requests concerning quantum. Requests for loan agreements, charges, exact advances and sources of purchase funds sought documents or evidence rather than further information properly required under Part 18. Those matters were appropriate for disclosure or witness statements.
5. Overall case management. The prolonged procedural history, delay, costs and other conduct concerns reinforced the conclusion that making the orders would not promote efficient and proportionate progress to trial.

The defendant’s collateral-attack argument based on Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police was rejected. The present application involved a different question and no final trial decision. The requests were refused, and costs were to be addressed after judgment.

The judgment states that the claim had previously survived:

• High Court: strike-out and summary-judgment applications were dismissed on 22 April 2020 in [2020] EWHC 951 (Ch).
• Court of Appeal: the defendant’s appeal was dismissed on 21 July 2021 in [2021] EWHC Civ 1103.
• Supreme Court: permission to appeal was refused on 27 June 2022.
• High Court (Business List): the separate application for further information and consequential strike-out relief was refused.