Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. & Ors

A party cannot discharge its disclosure obligation by refusing disclosure, citing lack of funds, or providing an unsorted database for the opponent to search. Standard disclosure requires the disclosing party to conduct a reasonable search and identify documents relevant to the issues.

A deliberate, serious and culpable refusal to disclose may justify striking out the defence and debarring the defendant from taking substantive steps where a fair trial would otherwise be jeopardised. Once the defence is struck out, allegations may be admitted under CPR 16.5(5), permitting summary judgment where there is no real prospect of resisting the claim and no compelling reason for trial.

The claimants brought two managed actions concerning alleged forgeries and false provenance documents relating to three antiquities. The 2020 action included claims in contract, misrepresentation, fraud and unlawful means conspiracy. The 2023 action concerned two further artefacts and similar allegations.

The Phoenix defendants repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations and ultimately stated that they would provide no further disclosure because they could not afford the exercise. The fourth defendant had already been debarred from defending. The claimants sought strike-out, debarring orders and summary judgment, together with relief concerning New York proceedings brought in alleged breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses.

The central issues were whether the disclosure failures justified procedural sanctions, whether summary judgment followed from the resulting absence of a defence, and whether final anti-suit relief and damages should be granted.

1. Disclosure obligations. CPR 31.6 and CPR 31.7 require a party to disclose the documents falling within the standard-disclosure test and to conduct a reasonable search. The obligation is owed to the court. A party cannot simply refuse disclosure because the exercise is expensive or provide an unsorted body of potentially relevant documents for the opponent to search. The disclosing party must apply its mind to identifying relevant and adverse material. [2025] EWHC 898 (KB)
2. Sanction for non-compliance. The Phoenix defendants’ refusal was deliberate, serious, prolonged, culpable and inexcusable. Their financial explanation was incomplete and unconvincing. The refusal jeopardised a fair trial because documents likely to bear directly on provenance, authenticity and knowledge were within their control. Applying the principles in Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd (No 2), JSC BTA Bank v Granton Trade Ltd, Byers v Samba Financial Group and Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd, strike-out and debarring orders were necessary and proportionate.
3. Extent of debarring order. It was insufficient merely to strike out the defence. The Phoenix defendants were debarred from taking any substantive part in the 2023 proceedings, including advancing a positive case, cross-examining the claimants’ witnesses or making submissions. The court accepted that a struck-out defence may continue to define the ambit of dispute and operate as an admission, but the appropriate order depends on the nature and effect of the default.
4. Summary judgment. After the Phoenix defendants’ defences were struck out, they had no pleaded defence and were treated under CPR 16.5(5) as admitting the allegations. They therefore had no real prospect of successfully defending the 2023 claim, and summary judgment was entered under CPR 24.3. In the 2020 action, judgment was entered only on the fraud, dishonesty and fraudulent-misrepresentation claims; the remaining claims retained their defences and had to be proved at trial.
5. Fourth defendant. The fourth defendant had failed to engage with either action, provide a defence or give disclosure. Summary judgment was entered against him in both actions.
6. Anti-suit injunction. The subject matter of the New York proceedings was covered by an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Final injunctive relief was necessary to protect the integrity of the English judgments. Only the first claimant could invoke the relevant agreements, and the only possible defendants to that claim were the first and fifth defendants. Summary judgment was entered for the first claimant, with damages representing reasonable costs assessed on an indemnity basis. Further submissions were invited on the precise consequential orders and damages calculation.