Lloyds Developments Limited vs Accor Hotel Services UK Limited

This case concerned an application by Lloyds Developments Limited for an extension of time to comply with an unless order, and the subsequent costs implications of that application.

TLDR:

• Lloyds sought an extension of time to comply with an unless order.
• The application was made at the last minute and in an unsatisfactory manner.
• The court ordered Lloyds to pay Accor's costs due to the manner of the application.
• An independent firm of solicitors was ordered to review WhatsApp messages for disclosure.
• Accor's application for further disclosure of documents referred to in witness statements was denied.

The dispute arose when Lloyds Developments Limited (the Claimant) filed an application for an extension of time to comply with an unless order. The unless order required Lloyds to make certain payments by 4.00 pm on 8 March 2024. Lloyds filed the application at 3.57 pm on the same day, without providing reasons, which were only submitted the following day.

Accor Hotel Services UK Limited (the Defendant) was not informed of the application until 12 March 2024. The court found the manner in which Lloyds handled the application to be unsatisfactory, noting that it led to unnecessary costs for Accor. Despite Lloyds' success in obtaining the extension, the court exercised its discretion to order Lloyds to pay Accor's costs due to the circumstances of the application.

Additionally, the court addressed issues related to the disclosure of WhatsApp messages between Lloyds' representatives. The messages were initially disclosed in a jumbled and heavily redacted form. The court ordered that an independent firm of solicitors, instructed jointly but at Lloyds' cost, should review the WhatsApp messages to ensure proper disclosure.

Accor also sought disclosure of documents referred to in witness statements by Mr. Jacobs, one of the administrators. The court denied this application, stating that the documents had no probative value in the litigation and were related to funding arrangements rather than the substance of the case.

Finally, the court considered an application by Accor for Lloyds to pay the costs of producing a document called the Particulars of Non Compliance (PNC). The court ruled that the costs of the PNC were already dealt with by a previous order and did not fall within the compass of costs of and occasioned by the amendments to the pleadings.

Legal representatives: Mr. J Bowling (instructed by Spencer West Llp LLP) for the Claimant, Mr. R Blackett (instructed by Haynes & Boone CDG LLP) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1238 (TCC)