Disputes Quick Read – 39 / 57 观点
At a recent disclosure hearing in Quartz Assets LLC and another v Kestrel Coal Midco Pty Ltd  EWHC 2675 (Comm), the claimant sought an order that the defendant extend its disclosure searches for pre-contractual negotiations and correspondence to include documents held by a third party (TP). The defendant agreed that the documents would be relevant but resisted disclosure as the documents were not in its control.
The second claimant and the defendant entered into a mezzanine subscription agreement in 2018. In the lead up to the agreement, TP was communicating with potential senior and mezzanine investors (including the second claimant) about possible financing and negotiating the terms of the agreement on behalf of the defendant pursuant to a retainer (to which the defendant was not a party).
There was a 'no agency' clause in the retainer, which provided that TP did not have authority to take action or sign any document on behalf of the defendant or otherwise bind it in any respect.
The Judge found that:
The judgment provides useful guidance on agency in the context of disclosure and is a helpful reminder that parties should consider at an early stage whether any third parties might hold relevant documents which could be deemed within either party's control.
The judgment also gives insight of how the court will approach applications under the disclosure pilot scheme. Central to the decisions are the usual principles of reasonableness and proportionality, but close attention will be paid to the agreed issues for disclosure, which is one of the key new requirements introduced by the disclosure pilot.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.
作者 Nick Storrs
作者 James Bryden
作者 Stuart Broom
作者 Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts