STL Global Group Holdings Limited v Mount Cook Land Limited

At a first case management conference, standard disclosure was ordered where the parties’ identified issues were intended to guide, rather than replace, the standard disclosure regime. Disclosure must be confined to relevant documents within a party’s control. Documents held by agents or custodians for other entities are not within the claimant’s control merely because of the relationship. Excessively wide historical searches should be limited to a reasonable period linked to the pleaded issues. Documents held by a non-party, including a former group entity or individual, may require a non-party disclosure application.

The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant and the court considered disputed aspects of disclosure at the first formal case management conference. The parties had proposed standard disclosure, but disagreed about the scope of the issues list, custodians, and the relevant date range.

The court addressed whether particular corporate ownership and intercompany matters, testamentary intentions, documents held by associated entities and individuals, and historical documents fell within the claimant’s disclosure obligations.

1. Disclosure model. Standard disclosure was ordered. The defendant’s correspondence had identified issues to guide standard disclosure and had not proposed issue-by-issue disclosure under CPR 31.5(7)(c). The issues list was approved as a guide, subject to the court’s qualifications.
2. Relevance of issues. The broader context of intercompany loans and their operation or understanding was relevant to issue 1, particularly in relation to the novation agreement. Issue 3 was not approved beyond disclosure already offered, because the proposed material did not presently have direct relevance and any dispute about ultimate beneficial ownership could be revisited if positively raised. Issue 6 was approved because the pleaded case was that the alleged agreement brought forward previously discussed testamentary arrangements. The issue imposed little practical burden and should not be removed in a way that pre-judged possible non-party disclosure applications.
3. Custodians and control. The defendant had not produced specific and compelling evidence that documents held by LEM and certain individuals were within the claimant’s practical control. In any event, the claimant’s obligations extended only to relevant documents held on its behalf. A contractual relationship did not, without more, give the claimant control over documents held on behalf of other entities. Documents held by Mr ST Lee were not within the claimant’s control and would require a request or non-party disclosure application.
4. Date range. A search beginning in 1998 was extravagantly wide. For general documents, a reasonable starting point was 2012, when the proposed share transfer was first mooted. For emails and correspondence, the claimant’s period began on its incorporation on 13 March 2019, subject to a 2012 start for pre-existing documents that it later became responsible for holding.
5. The claimant was required to give a clear answer concerning the present location of the Koros documents.