The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office v Samyung Enc Co Limited

An unless order may impose strike-out of a defence where persistent non-compliance with disclosure orders is significant and serious, lacks good reason, threatens a fair trial, and makes strike-out proportionate under the Denton v TH White Ltd approach. The court must separately consider whether strike-out should result in judgment for a quantified sum. Where continued default would frustrate a fair assessment of damages, the court may enter judgment for a sum reasonably supported by the available evidence, even in a claim for unliquidated damages. Prospective alternative service may also be authorised where there is good reason to anticipate loss of representation and failure to provide a domestic address for service.

The claimant sought an unless order, summary judgment and prospective alternative-service directions in an inquiry into damages for breaches of licence agreements concerning electronic navigational chart data. The defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure orders, including an earlier unless order, and did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether its defence should be struck out, whether judgment should then be entered for the claimant’s claimed principal and interest, whether the summary judgment application should be adjourned, and whether future documents could be served by alternative means.

1. Unless order. The court proceeded in the defendant’s absence under CPR 23.11. Applying the principles in Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas, [2007] EWCA Civ 463, Walsham Chalet Park Ltd v Tallington Lakes Ltd, [2014] EWCA Civ 1607, and Denton v TH White Ltd, [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the breaches were significant and serious. They were multiple, persistent, unexplained and prejudicial to the claimant’s ability to establish the full extent of its loss. They also jeopardised the trial and the possibility of a fair hearing.
2. The defendant had no good reason for non-compliance. The evidence supported the inference that it had chosen not to provide disclosure as part of a strategy to delay or stop the inquiry. Considering all the circumstances, including the importance of compliance, the approaching trial and the absence of special factors, strike-out was proportionate. The court ordered that the Points of Defence would be struck out unless the required Extended Disclosure and confirmatory statement were provided by 13 February 2026.
3. Consequences of strike-out. CPR 3.4(3) and paragraph 4.2 of Practice Direction 3A permitted a consequential judgment. Following Workman v Forrester, [2017] EWCA Civ 73, the court held that it could specify a money judgment as the consequence of continued disclosure default, even though the damages claim was unliquidated. A trial based only on the claimant’s necessarily incomplete evidence would be unfair and would allow the defendant to benefit from frustrating the damages assessment. Judgment would therefore be entered for £61,716,516.09 plus £28,858,502.96 interest if the disclosure condition was not met.
4. The summary judgment application was adjourned to an expedited hearing. Good reason existed under CPR 6.15(1), incorporated by CPR 6.27, to authorise prospective alternative service if the defendant ceased to be represented and failed to provide a United Kingdom address for service. Costs were ordered as specified in the operative orders.