Kyndryl UK Limited v Jaguar Land Rover Limited

Requests under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 18 must satisfy two threshold conditions: they must concern a matter in dispute and be strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable a party to prepare its case or understand the case it must meet. If either condition is absent, the court has no jurisdiction to order further information.

Where the threshold is met, Part 18 relief remains discretionary and must be assessed within overall case management. Requests should not ordinarily require detailed evidence, matters likely to emerge through disclosure, witness statements or expert reports, or a concise but compliant pleading to be expanded unnecessarily. Unless orders require particular caution, especially where the alleged deficiencies are not identified precisely.

Kyndryl brought substantial contractual, estoppel and unjust enrichment claims concerning information-technology services supplied to Jaguar Land Rover. Following earlier interlocutory proceedings, Kyndryl amended its pleadings and served responses to Jaguar Land Rover’s requests for further information.

Jaguar Land Rover sought an unless order, further orders under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 18, permission to amend one request, and ultimately strike-out relief if the responses remained inadequate. The application concerned particulars of alleged requests, an inchoate variation agreement, pleaded conventions, quantum and the evidential basis of the claims.

1. Application dismissed. Subject to minor tidying of the responses, the requests were not strictly confined to matters reasonably necessary and proportionate for preparation of the defence or understanding the case to be met. Those requirements were threshold conditions. Their absence deprived the court of jurisdiction to make an order under CPR Part 18.
2. The court adopted the principles summarised in HRH Prince Khaled Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Gibbs [2022] 1 WLR 3082. If the threshold conditions are satisfied, Part 18 relief is a discretionary case-management decision governed by the overriding objective. The likely benefit, cost and practical burden of providing information must be considered.
3. Kyndryl had elected to advance its unjust-enrichment case by relying on an implication from a long course of conduct, rather than specific requests. Its responses were therefore adequate, save that the qualification “at this stage” had to be removed. The pleaded variation agreement was inchoate, so requests seeking particulars as though it were a fully concluded agreement were misconceived.
4. The requests seeking every conversation or exchange supporting pleaded conventions, and material falling into evidence rather than pleading, were disproportionate. Quantum should progress through the pleadings and sequential factual and expert evidence.
5. The court was highly reluctant to make unless orders for imperfect particulars. Under QPS Consultants v Kruger Tissue [1999] BLR 366, insufficiency does not automatically constitute breach, and strike out should not be used unless the responses as a whole fall significantly short. Any complaint should identify precisely what is deficient and what further information is required.
6. The post-draft request for clarification was rejected. Circulation of a draft judgment is for correction of obvious errors and consequential matters, not re-argument or reconsideration. The guidance in Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd [2008] 1 All ER 1156, George v Cannell [2022] EWCA Civ 1067 and In re YM (A Child) [2024] 1 WLR 3873 was applied.