All Documents and communications (including emails, WhatsApp messages, messages on any other platform, and internal memoranda) evidencing the date and circumstances under which the Defendant or any of its officers, employees, or agents first became aware of, or first formed the belief, that the Claimant was charging any “mark- up”, “concealed margin”, “undisclosed profit” or equivalent on the supply of garments under the Agreement.

The Defendant’s case on “concealed mark-ups” (including paragraphs 28D– 28E of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim and paragraphs 42, 45, 47 and 51 of the Counterclaimant’s Amended Reply) is central to its counterclaim and to its attempt to characterise the Claimant’s pricing as dishonest and a breach of mandate. Documents showing when and how the Defendant first came to believe that any mark-up existed are directly relevant to (i) whether the alleged misconduct actually occurred; (ii) whether the Defendant’s belief was formed only after the relationship had broken down and after legal advice; and (iii) whether the “concealed mark-up” narrative is an ex post facto litigation construct. They are material to credibility, limitation/affirmation, and quantum of any alleged enrichment.

The requested documents concern the Defendant’s internal knowledge, beliefs, deliberations and communications as to when and how it first formed the view that the Claimant had applied any alleged mark-up or undisclosed profit. Such internal materials are not within the Claimant’s possession, custody or control.

The documents sought would necessarily be within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control because they concern the Defendant’s own officers, employees, agents, internal memoranda and communications, and its own process of forming the pleaded belief.

The request is objected to on grounds of legal professional privilege under RDC 28.28(2). Communications between the Defendant and its legal advisers are protected from production. The request is further objected to as lacking sufficient relevance and materiality under RDC 28.28(1) to the extent it seeks internal deliberations and analyses rather than identifiable documents relied upon in the pleadings.

Request refused. The request focusses on when and how the Defendant became aware of the alleged mark-ups. This is not relevant to the case sought to be advanced.

All Documents and communications referred to, relied upon, or reviewed by the Defendant in arriving at the alleged “c. 34.38%” mark-up figure pleaded at paragraph 28E of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim and referred to at paragraph 42 of the Counterclaimant’s Amended Reply dated 6 February 2026. This includes (without limitation) any spreadsheets, analyses, working papers, underlying data, third-party cost estimates, comparisons between the Claimant’s invoices and supplier invoices (including EStar), and any internal calculations.

The 34.38% figure is expressly pleaded as the measure of the Defendant’s alleged “loss and damage” from supposed undisclosed mark-ups. The underlying calculations, data and assumptions are therefore directly material to (i) the existence and quantum of any alleged enrichment; (ii) whether the Defendant’s methodology is sound; (iii) whether any mark-up falls within the contractual structure (Fees and Expenses) or outside it; and (iv) whether the pleaded percentage has any independent basis or is speculative. These documents go to the heart of the counterclaim and the credibility of the Defendant’s case on pricing.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of the Defendant’s internal calculations, working papers, analyses, spreadsheets, or other materials relied upon by the Defendant in arriving at the pleaded 34.38% figure.

The pleaded figure is advanced by the Defendant in support of its counterclaim and must therefore derive from documents and analyses in the Defendant’s possession, custody or control, including internal calculations and materials reviewed or relied upon by it.

The Defendant confirms that Exhibit D14 has been produced and contains the materials responsive to this request. The Defendant further objects to the characterisation of the 34.38% as a precise agreed figure; the mark- up varied across products and orders.

Request allowed. The Claimant is entitled to understand the validity and basis of the pleaded figure. If there are no documents other than Exhibit D14 falling within the request, this should be stated expressly.

All Documents and communications provided to the Defendant (or any of its officers, employees, or agents) by any third party, from 1 April 2024 to the present date, concerning the Claimant’s pricing, profit margins, supplier relationships (including EStar), or internal operations, where such documents or communications were used, in whole or in part, to support or inform the Defendant’s allegations of concealed mark-ups or undisclosed profits.

The Defendant suggests (Paragraph 52.3 of the Defendant’s Amended Reply To Defence To Counterclaim) that it had learned of the undisclosed margin by reference to supplier-side information (including EStar). Any third-party communications or documents relied upon in forming this view are directly relevant to (i) testing the provenance and reliability of the Defendant’s allegations; (ii) identifying whether the Defendant relied on incomplete or selective information; and (iii) understanding whether the “concealed mark-up” narrative is a reconstruction based on post-hoc enquiries. These documents are material to liability, quantum and credibility.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of third-party communications or documents received by the Defendant and used by the Defendant to support its allegations of concealed mark-ups or undisclosed profits.

The requested documents were received, held, reviewed or relied upon by the Defendant or its officers, employees or agents, and are therefore within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control.

No third-party communications of the nature described exist.

Request allowed. If there are no such documents this should be stated expressly. The Defedant pleads specific reference to how it is said to have learned of the information.

All Documents referred to in paragraph 10 of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim dated 19 December 2025, namely the “correspondence, technical notes, and sample approvals” said to contemporaneously record alleged defects in the goods supplied.

The Defendant relies on the existence of contemporaneous “correspondence, technical notes, and sample approvals” as proof that the Claimant repeatedly supplied defective goods. Production of these documents is necessary to determine whether the alleged defects were in fact identified and notified to the Claimant, at what stage (sample vs bulk), and whether they were resolved or accepted by the Defendant. They are directly material to the pleaded allegations of defective supply and to the Claimant’s case that the Defendant has exaggerated or mischaracterised quality issues.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of the Defendant’s internal records, technical notes, correspondence and sample approval materials referred to in the Defendant’s own pleading as contemporaneously recording alleged defects.

These documents are expressly referred to in the Defendant’s Amended Defence and Counterclaim and are therefore within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control, or readily obtainable by it from its own files and personnel.

The Defendant confirms that responsive documents have been produced to the extent they exist, including all email correspondence and communications referring to alleged defects. Following reasonable searches of currently available records in accordance with RDC 28.20, the Defendant is not aware of any additional technical notes or sample approvals beyond those already disclosed.

Request allowed. Given the pleading, the Defendant is required to produce the documents referred to or explain what has happened to them

The complete, unredacted email dated 19 June 2024 from Mrunal Bandgar to Mr Anton Wong (or any other Claimant representative) relied upon at paragraph 22 of the Witness Statement of Negar Shapourian dated 23 June 2025 and paragraph 20 of the Counterclaimant’s Amended Reply dated 6 February 2026, together with the full email chain and all attachments.

The Defendant asserts that this email documents defects in garments supplied under Invoice 1551; however, Invoice 1551 is understood to have been delivered only on or about 30/31 July 2024. Full production of the email chain is required to clarify:

Although the Claimant may hold portions of correspondence to which it was party, the full unredacted email chain, including all attachments, forwarders, recipients and internal segments relied upon by the Defendant, is not wholly within the Claimant’s possession, custody or control.

The Defendant has relied on this email in its own evidence and has exhibited or referenced it. The complete chain as relied upon by the Defendant, together with the version retained in the Defendant’s systems and any attachments, is within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control.

The response to this request has been produced as Exhibit D9. The Defendant confirms that this constitutes the document responsive to this request.

Request allowed, It appears that the full email chain has not been produced but it should be.

All Documents evidencing alleged defects in, or rework of, garments supplied under Invoice 1551, including (without limitation): (a) internal quality reports, warehouse receiving notes and inspection records; (b) photographs or videos of the alleged defects (stitching, fabric, completeness of sets); (c) customer complaints, return forms, or credit notes; and (d) invoices, work orders or other records evidencing any “rework” said to have been performed on these goods.

Invoice 1551 is repeatedly cited as a central example of defective and incomplete deliveries (see, e.g., Witness Statement paragraphs 21(d), 22; Defence with Counterclaim paragraph 28(a); Amended Defence and Counterclaim paragraph 28(a); Counterclaimant’s Reply paragraph 20). The requested documents are directly material to verifying: (i) whether any defects existed; (ii) their nature and extent; (iii) what rework or write-offs, if any, occurred; and (iv) whether these issues were in fact notified to the Claimant in a timely manner. They are critical to the pleaded allegations of defective supply and rework costs.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of the Defendant’s internal quality reports, warehouse receiving records, customer complaint records, return forms, credit notes, rework records or other downstream records concerning goods after receipt by the Defendant.

The documents sought concern the Defendant’s own post-delivery inspection, warehousing, retail, returns and rework processes, and would therefore be held by the Defendant, its employees, agents, warehouses, or service providers under its control.

The Defendant objects to this request as proceeding on a misunderstanding of its pleaded case. The Defendant has not alleged defects specific to Invoice 1551 but rather raised quality issues arising from earlier consignments. The Claimant's refusal to provide credit or replacement is part of the relevant factual background.

Request refused on the basis that it the Defendant has made it plain that it does not allege any defects or incomplete deliveries in respect of Invoice 1551 and the case will proceed on that basis.

All Documents evidencing the Defendant’s alleged “discovery” of the Claimant’s “undisclosed pricing practices” which is said to have led to termination and to the contention that Invoice 0147 was paid under a mistaken belief, including all documents reviewed or relied upon and any internal analyses, reports or legal advice summaries (with privileged content capable of redaction) identifying the date and basis of such discovery.

These documents go directly to the pleaded assertion that the Defendant continued paying the Claimant only until it “discovered” undisclosed margins, after which it terminated the Agreement and advanced its counterclaim (see, e.g., Witness Statement paragraphs 46, 51; Counterclaimant’s Amended Reply paragraphs 37, 45–47, 51). They are material to limitation, affirmation/waiver, the credibility of the alleged “mistaken belief” and the timing of any alleged repudiatory breach by the Claimant.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of the Defendant’s internal analyses, reports, reviews or legal advice summaries recording when and how it allegedly discovered the Claimant’s pricing practices.

The Defendant pleads that it made such discovery and acted upon it. Documents evidencing that asserted discovery, including internal analyses and summaries, would be within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control.

The discrepancy between the Claimant’s pricing and prevailing market practice has already been addressed in Exhibit D14. Any further document production requests by the Claimant seeking disclosure of the Defendant’s internal analyses, deliberations, or legal assessments as to the basis for the alleged pricing inconsistencies are irrelevant and fall outside the scope of proper disclosure. To the extent that such requests seek internal deliberations or the Defendant’s evolving understanding, they exceed the permissible bounds of document production and amount to an impermissible fishing expedition.

Request permitted on the basis that the documents go to the alleged mistake.

All Documents evidencing the Defendant’s approval of each “Style” listed as chargeable under Invoice 0166, including (without limitation): (a) tech pack approvals; (b) lab dip approvals; (c) strikeoff approvals; (d) fit sample approvals; and (e) pre-production sample approvals. The Defendant shall identify, by reference to the Claimant’s style codes, which designs it admits were developed and which it contends were merely “colour or size variations of the same underlying design”, as alleged at paragraph 35.4 of the Counterclaimant’s Amended Reply dated 6 February 2026.

The Defendant alleges that Invoice 0166 was “fabricated” or “opportunistically manufactured” and that it overstates the number of genuine styles developed (Witness Statement paragraph 32; Amended Defence and Counterclaim paragraph 20; Counterclaimant’s Amended Reply paragraph 35.4). Documents showing the Defendant’s own approvals of tech packs, lab dips, strikeoffs and samples are necessary to establish the true number of developed styles and whether the Defendant contemporaneously accepted that work as chargeable. They are material to the validity and quantum of the Claimant’s style development claim and to rebuttal allegations of fabrication.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of the Defendant’s internal approval records and documents showing which styles it approved, accepted, or classified as developed, or its internal identification of which were said to be mere colour or size variations.

The requested materials concern the Defendant’s own approvals and internal categorisation of styles, including sample and design approvals maintained within its product development, merchandising or buying functions, and are therefore within its possession, custody or control.

There are no documents of the nature described in the Claimant’s request. The Defendant objects under RDC 28.28(1). The documents sought do not exist and, in any event, fall outside the Defendant’s contractual scope. The Claimant’s explanation as to why such documents are required is irrelevant. The Defendant’s case does not concern physical fabrication, but rather a question of contractual interpretation. The Defendant’s pleaded position is that the Claimant has incorrectly treated colour variations of a garment as separate “Styles.” On a proper construction of the Agreement, a “Style” refers to a distinct design (e.g., cut, silhouette, or fabrication), and not superficial variations such as colour. The alleged “mismatch” arises solely from the Claimant’s misinterpretation of the Agreement. Accordingly, no responsive documents of the nature sought exist, and the request is misconceived and amounts to a fishing expedition.

Request refused. The Claimant has its own records and the proper interpretation of the agreement is a matter for the Court.

All “documentation demonstrating the actual number of designs developed, excluding superficial colour permutations” referred to in paragraph 33 of the Witness Statement of Negar Shapourian dated 23 June 2025, including any internal spreadsheets, trackers or reports prepared by or for the Defendant that purport to show an alternative design count.

The Defendant contends in the Witness Statement of Negar Shapourian dated 23 June 2025 (Paragraph 29) that the Claimant has overstated the number of chargeable designs. Any internal documentation on which the Defendant relies for its own style count is essential to compare methodologies, identify any selective treatment of colour/size variations and test whether the Defendant’s alternative count is reliable. These documents are material to the assessment of Invoice 0166 and any alleged overcharging.

The Claimant is not in possession, custody or control of any internal spreadsheets, trackers or reports prepared by or for the Defendant demonstrating its alternative design count methodology.

The Defendant expressly relies on an alternative design count. Any documents evidencing that count and its methodology would be within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control.

There are no documents of the nature described in the Claimant’s request. Communication and ordering process was through emails as explained above.

Request denied. As 15

All invoices, payment requests, statements of account, receipts, or other documentary evidence relating to alleged storage charges imposed by the factory, including but not limited to the charges referenced in the email dated 7 March 2024 (Tab 1 in the Claimant's Standard Disclosure). Any such invoice would reasonably be expected to have been issued by NB- Matching (the factory) or ESTAR (the vendor).

These documents are directly relevant to the issues raised in the Claimant's pleading concerning alleged storage charges and its dealings with factories and suppliers. The Claimant pleads that goods remained in warehouse storage accruing storage charges (Reply ¶110) and that it managed communications and arrangements with factories and suppliers as part of its services under the Agreement (Reply ¶43). Documents evidencing any storage charges imposed by the factory or supplier are therefore material to determining whether such charges were in fact issued, incurred and passed through to the Defendant. This evidence is relevant to the Defendant's counterclaim and to the issues of supplier pricing, alleged storage costs, and whether the Claimant has properly substantiated the charges relied upon in these proceedings.

The Defendant was not involved in the Claimant's dealings with the factory or vendor and did not receive or retain supplier invoices or supporting documents relating to alleged storage charges. Such documents, if they exist, would have been generated in the course of the Claimant's communications and transactions with, for example, NBMatching or ESTAR and are therefore not within the Defendant's possession, custody or control.

The Claimant was responsible under the Agreement for identifying suppliers, negotiating prices and managing communications with factories in connection with the sourcing and supply of garments. Any invoices, payment requests, statements of account or other documents issued by, inter alia, NB- Matching or ESTAR in respect of storage charges would therefore have been received or retained by the Claimant in the course of those dealings and are reasonably believed to be within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality and proportionality. The Claimant objects to this Request on the grounds of lack of sufficient relevance or materiality and proportionality. This Request is based on a mischaracterisation of the Claimant's pricing model and the reference to "storage charges" in the email dated 7 March 2024, which was made in the context of the Defendant's persistent delays in payment and the resulting risk to supplier relationships, rather than any actual charge invoiced. The documents sought do not exist. No storage charges were ever charged by any supplier to the Claimant or by the Claimant to the Defendant, and no invoices, payment requests, statements of account, or receipts were issued in respect of such charges. No such charges were included in any invoice at any stage of the parties' relationship. In the circumstances, the Request lacks relevance and seeks documents that do not exist. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Claimant produces the complete email thread dated 7 March 2024 ("Drop 3A Payment") in unredacted form to demonstrate the context in which the reference was made.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

The Claimant's objection is not well- founded and should be rejected for the following reasons.

1. The "documents do not exist" position is internally contradictory with the Claimant's own pleadings.

The Claimant's response simultaneously (a) asserts that no storage charges were ever incurred, and (b) states that the email dated 7 March 2024 referred to storage charges only "in the context of the Defendant's persistent delays in payment and the resulting risk to supplier relationships." If the reference to storage charges in the Claimant's own email was genuine enough to be used as leverage over the Defendant, the Defendant is entitled to documents that would corroborate or contradict that assertion. The Claimant cannot use the spectre of storage charges as a commercial pressure point in its communications and then assert that the underlying documents do not exist. The Claimant has pleaded that "goods remained in warehouse storage accruing storage charges" — a positive pleaded fact that must be supported by documentary evidence or withdrawn.

2. A "no documents exist" response is not a proper objection under RDC.

Pursuant to RDC 28.16 and 28.17, a Request to Produce must be met either by production or by a properly substantiated objection. The requirements for responding to a Request to Produce are set out in RDC 28.40, which requires the responding party to state whether it objects to production and, if so, to specify the grounds for that objection.

The permissible grounds for objection are set out in RDC 28.42 and include, inter alia, lack of relevance or materiality, legal privilege, and disproportionate burden. To the extent that the Claimant asserts that no responsive documents exist, this is not, in itself, a standalone ground of objection under RDC 28.42. Rather, such a position must be clearly articulated and, where appropriate, supported by a reasonable explanation of the searches undertaken and the basis upon which the Claimant contends that no documents fall within its possession, custody or control.

A bare and unparticularised statement that documents do not exist does not satisfy the requirements of RDC 28.40 and is insufficient to discharge the Claimant’s production obligations.

In the absence of a properly substantiated position, the objection should be rejected and the Claimant should be ordered to confirm, with specificity, the steps taken to identify responsive documents and to produce any documents falling within its possession, custody or control.

3. The Claimant's production of the email thread does not satisfy the Request.

The email thread itself is precisely the document that gives rise to the Request — it is not a response to it. The Request seeks the underlying supplier documentation (invoices, statements of account, warehouse receipts) that would substantiate, contradict, or contextualise the storage charge reference. The email alone does not discharge the Claimant's disclosure obligation.

The Defendant maintains this Request and asks the Court to order production or a verified statement of non-existence.

Request denied. The case will proceed on the basis there were no storage charges.

All communications and associated documents between the Claimant and any factory or supplier involved in the manufacture of garments supplied to the Defendant referring to storage charges, delays in shipment, or any risk to the Claimant's relationship with the factory, including communications relating to the matters referred to in the email from Anton Wong dated 7 March 2024 stating that the Claimant's relationship with the factory was "at risk", between June 2023 and June 2024 (Tab 1).

These documents are directly relevant to the Defendant's position that the Claimant was responsible under the Agreement for sourcing garments, managing suppliers and factories, and coordinating the manufacture and delivery of the garments supplied to the Defendant. It's the Defendant's position that the Claimant was responsible for overseeing production timelines, maintaining supplier relationships, and addressing any issues affecting shipment or delivery. The requested communications are necessary to determine the factual basis for the Claimant's assertion, including in the email from Anton Wong dated 7 March 2024, that the Claimant's relationship with the factory was "at risk", and whether storage charges or shipment delays were in fact raised by the factory and in what circumstances. Such documents will assist the Court in determining the cause of any alleged shipment delays and the basis on which storage costs were incurred. The documents are also relevant to the Defendant's position regarding the structure of the supply chain and the Claimant's role within it. The Defendant contends that the Claimant did not deal directly with factories responsible for manufacturing the garments but instead operated through thirdparty vendors, including EStar, and subsequently invoiced the Defendant for goods and services. Communications between the Claimant and factories or suppliers will assist in determining whether the Claimant in fact maintained direct relationships with factories involved in production. Further, the documents may shed light on the extent of the Claimant's involvement in product development and the development of individual styles, including whether the Claimant itself engaged with factories in connection with the manufacture and development of the garments supplied to the Defendant. Accordingly, the requested documents are relevant and material to determining the Claimant's role in supplier management, production oversight, and product development, as well as the circumstances said to have given rise to shipment delays and storage charges.

The Defendant was not party to communications between the Claimant and its factories or suppliers and therefore does not possess such communications.

The Claimant communicated directly with factories and suppliers regarding production, storage and shipment of the garments and therefore any communications relating to these matters are likely to be within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, unreasonable burden, proportionality. The Claimant objects to this Request on the grounds of lack of sufficient
relevance or
materiality,
unreasonable
burden, and
proportionality.
The Request is overly broad and seeks "all communications" with "any factory or supplier" over a 12-month period on broadly framed topics, which amounts to a fishing exercise and imposes a disproportionate burden on the Claimant. Further, the Request is based on an incorrect premise. There was no agreed delivery date under the Services Agreement or otherwise. The goods for Drop 3A were ready for shipment by 31 January 2024 in accordance with the production schedule. Any delay in shipment thereafter was caused by the Defendant's failure to make payment, which was not received until 15 March 2024. The Services Agreement does not contain any agreed delivery dates, and the Claimant's obligation was to manage the production and supply process, not to guarantee specific delivery timelines. In the circumstances, the Request lacks sufficient relevance and materiality.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The Request is not a fishing expedition — it is targeted at identified subject matters arising from the Claimant's own email.

The Request is expressly anchored to the email dated 7 March 2024 from Mr. Anton Wong, which appears at Tab 1 of the Claimant’s own Standard Disclosure. The Claimant itself deployed that email as evidence. The Defendant is entitled to understand the full factual context of the assertions made in that email — specifically, whether the “at-risk” relationship with the factory was real, documented, and communicated. A request limited to communications relating to specific subject matters identified in a named document over a defined 12-month period is not a fishing expedition; it is a targeted and particularised request satisfying the clarity requirements of RDC 28.17(2). Moreover, the requested communications are plainly relevant and material to the Defendant’s counterclaim, as they evidence the content, timing, and context of representations relied upon by the Claimant, in accordance with RDC 28.17(3).

2. The breadth objection is overstated and the burden is proportionate.

The Claimant's supplier base for the goods supplied to the Defendant was limited — the primary entities identified in these proceedings are NB-Matching, ESTAR, and FILA (HK) Ltd. Communications with those identified entities regarding the specific topics of storage charges, shipment delays, and factory relationship risk over 12 months are not a disproportionate class of documents for a commercial litigation of this size. Under RDC 1.6, the overriding objective requires the Court to manage the case proportionately to its importance and complexity. In the context of document production, RDC 28.28(7) permits the Court to exclude documents only where considerations of proportionality, fairness or procedural economy are compelling. Here, the requested documents go to the heart of the Defendant’s counterclaim regarding delay and pricing issues in the supply chain, and are plainly proportionate to the matters in dispute.

3. The payment delay explanation does not defeat the Request.

The Claimant's assertion that any shipment delay was caused by the Defendant's late payment is a factual assertion in dispute. The documents requested are precisely the evidence by which the Court can evaluate that assertion. If there are contemporaneous communications between the Claimant and the factory recording that goods were held pending the Defendant's payment, those communications would be supportive of the Claimant's position — and the Defendant accepts that risk. The Claimant's refusal to produce the communications suggests the position is more nuanced than pleaded.

4. The Defendant maintains this Request and asks the Court to order production with appropriate scope.

The Defendant is willing to accept a reasonable limitation: all communications between the Claimant and NBMatching, ESTAR, and/or any other identified factory or supplier referring to storage, delay, shipment holds, or factory relationship risk, from June 2023 to June 2024.

Request denied. Overly broad with limited or no materiality.

All communications between FILA (HK) LTD, ESTAR, and/or the Claimant relating to quality control inspections, inspection reports, or approval of goods supplied to the Defendant dated May 2023 – July 2024.

These documents are relevant to the Defendant's position concerning the adequacy and scope of the quality control and inspection processes applied to the garments supplied to the Defendant. The Inspection Reports produced by the Claimant during the period May 2023 to July 2024 identify only a limited number of defective items and do not indicate that the entirety of the relevant inventory was inspected. The Defendant's position is that the inspection documentation produced does not reflect the full volume of goods supplied. The requested communications are therefore necessary to determine how the inspections were conducted, including the number of items inspected, the scope of the inspections performed, and the reasons why defects may not have been identified during the inspection or quality control process. Further, communications between FILA (HK) Ltd, ESTAR and the Claimant are relevant to determining the identity of the parties involved in the inspection and quality control process and the extent to which the Claimant supervised or coordinated that process. These documents will assist the Court in understanding the inspection procedures applied to the garments supplied to the Defendant and whether those procedures were adequate to identify defects prior to shipment. Accordingly, the requested communications are relevant and material to determining the inspection process applied to the garments, the scope of quality control undertaken, and the Claimant's role in supervising or coordinating those inspections.

The Defendant was not party to communications between FILA (HK) Ltd, ESTAR and Label Labs concerning inspections or quality control and therefore does not possess such documents.

Communications relating to those inspections would therefore have been exchanged with the Claimant in the course of coordinating production and quality control and are likely within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

The inspection reports produced by the Claimant indicate that inspections were carried out in connection with the garments supplied to the Defendant. Communications relating to those inspections would therefore have been exchanged with the Claimant in the course of coordinating production and quality control and are likely within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, proportionality; documents not in Claimant's control.

As a preliminary matter, the Claimant clarifies that FILA (HK) Ltd acted as a third-party quality control inspector and was not the manufacturing factory, which was Ningbo Matching. This is confirmed by the Defendant's own Request 9, in which the Defendant states that 'FILA HK has been identified as the factory,' an assertion that is factually incorrect and demonstrates a misapprehension of the supply chain structure.

The Final Inspection Reports confirm that inspections were carried out by FILA (HK) Ltd's own QC personnel. Those reports expressly state that inspection results 'do not release the vendor their responsibility in the event of claims and/or complaints from our Principals who will exercise ultimate acceptance of goods upon receipt of such at final destination.' The reports further state that issuance of the report 'does not necessarily mean approval for release of shipment' and that 'the final decision to ship is to come from product development team.' Quality control inspections were therefore a function carried out by FILA (HK) Ltd independently of the Claimant. Quality control inspections were therefore not the responsibility of the Claimant and were not within the scope of its obligations under the Services Agreement, which contains no reference to quality control or inspection functions. The Claimant has already produced the Final Inspection Reports in its Standard Disclosure, all of which record a "PASS" result. The Defendant also approved and signed off on samples prior to bulk production and holds a comprehensive record of product development materials, including in a physical binder in its possession. In the circumstances, the Request is of limited relevance beyond documents already produced, and to the extent it seeks communications solely between third parties, such documents are not within the Claimant's possession, custody or control. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Claimant confirms that it has already produced the Final Inspection Reports.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The Claimant's clarification on FILA's role is noted but does not defeat the Request.

The Claimant's clarification that FILA (HK) Ltd acted as a third- party quality control inspector rather than the manufacturing factory does not reduce the relevance of the requested communications — to the contrary, it reinforces it. If FILA conducted inspections as an independent QC entity, the communications between FILA, ESTAR, and the Claimant coordinating those inspections are directly relevant to understanding the scope of the inspection programme, what was inspected, and what instructions or parameters were given to FILA.

2. The "not within Claimant's control" objection is not credible on the facts.

The Claimant was the party that engaged FILA (HK) Ltd to conduct the inspections. Any communications instructing FILA as to what to inspect, confirming inspection bookings, receiving intermediate reports, or discussing results would have been exchanged between the Claimant and FILA directly. To the extent communications were between FILA and ESTAR only, those may be outside the Claimant's control — but the Claimant has not distinguished between communications it holds and those it does not. A proper response must make that distinction.

3. The inspection reports and related communications are directly relevant and material

The Claimant’s position on inspections is internally inconsistent. It asserts that FILA (HK) Ltd inspections produced “PASS” reports but simultaneously disclaims any relevance, stating that inspections do not approve shipment and were outside the Claimant’s contractual scope. These statements cannot both be true: inspection reports either reflect product quality or they are irrelevant.

The requested communications are material to understanding the scope, scheduling, and results of inspections, as well as the information available to the Claimant and its communications with FILA and ESTAR regarding product quality. Quality assurance is a standard and integral part of product development; without access to these communications, the Defendant cannot verify whether the garments delivered were of acceptable quality or whether any defects were identified or addressed.

Moreover, inspection is a core service offered by the Claimant. Its website states:

“Quality Control – Perfection in quality is critical. Each product produced is inspected at four stages throughout the manufacturing process.” https://www.labellabs.co/product-design-manufacturing By offering such services, the Claimant implicitly acknowledges that inspection documentation is material to demonstrating product quality. Disclaimers regarding the comprehensiveness of inspections or approval authority define formal liability, not the factual quality information recorded.

Finally, under RDC 28.17(3), a Request to Produce must explain how the requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the case. The inspection reports and related communications clearly meet this standard, as they speak directly to product quality, inspection outcomes, and the factual matrix of the Defendant’s counterclaim. Under RDC 28.28, considerations such as proportionality, fairness or procedural economy may only justify exclusion if the Court determines those considerations to be compelling. Here, the importance of the requested documents to the Defendant’s counterclaim supports their production. The Claimant cannot avoid disclosure simply because inspections were conducted by a third party or by citing scope disclaimers. Documents generated, maintained, or communicated on its behalf are properly within scope.

4. The Defendant narrows the Request in the interest of proportionality.

The Defendant will accept a narrowed scope: communications between the Claimant and FILA (HK) Ltd relating to the scope, scheduling, and results of quality control inspections carried out on garments supplied to the Defendant, May 2023 to July 2024.

Request allowed only to the narrowed extent set out in paragraph 4 of D’s response. This represents an appropriately narrow class of relevant documents.

All contracts, agreements, purchase agreements, or other written arrangements between ESTAR and the Claimant between April 2023 and January 2024 relating to the sourcing, manufacture, supply, or inspection of the garments supplied to the Defendant.

The existence and terms of any agreement between ESTAR and the Claimant are directly relevant to determining the Claimant's role in the supply chain and the nature of its relationship with the supplier responsible for manufacturing the garments supplied to the Defendant. The Defendant's position is that the Claimant sourced garments through ESTAR and/or factories engaged by ESTAR, before invoicing the Defendant for those goods. The requested documents are therefore necessary to determine the pricing structure within the supply chain, including any markups applied between the factory, ESTAR and the Claimant, and the basis on which the prices charged to the Defendant were determined. These documents will also assist in clarifying the contractual framework governing responsibility for product defects, storage costs and pricing arrangements between the entities involved in the manufacture and supply of the garments. Accordingly, the documents are relevant to determining the roles of ESTAR and the Claimant in the sourcing and supply process and the pricing structure applied to the garments supplied to the Defendant.

The Defendant was not party to any contractual arrangements between ESTAR and the Claimant and does not possess those documents.

Any agreement governing the relationship between the Claimant and ESTAR would have been entered into or retained by the Claimant in the course of sourcing and managing suppliers and is therefore likely within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, proportionality; documents do not exist in form described.

There is no formal written contract or framework agreement between the Claimant and ESTAR of the type described in the Request. The relationship between the Claimant and ESTAR was conducted on a transactional basis through purchase orders, quotations and proforma invoices, which is standard practice in the garment sourcing industry.
Further, the commercial arrangements between the Claimant and its suppliers are not relevant to the issues in dispute. The Services Agreement expressly contemplated that the Claimant would source garments through vendors and suppliers, and the Claimant was engaged for its expertise in identifying suppliers, managing production and coordinating the supply chain. In the circumstances, the Request lacks relevance insofar as it seeks documents that do not exist in the form described.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The Claimant's confirmation of the transactional framework is itself a material disclosure.

The Claimant has confirmed that its relationship with ESTAR was conducted through purchase orders, quotations, and proforma invoices. This confirmation is significant: it means that documentary records of those individual transactional arrangements must exist and must be within the Claimant's possession, custody or control. The Defendant therefore modifies this Request: it does not insist on a formal framework agreement if none exists, but it does seek the purchase orders, quotations, proforma invoices, and any other written instruments by which the Claimant engaged ESTAR in respect of garments supplied to the Defendant.

2. The "not relevant" objection mischaracterises the Defendant's purpose.

The relevance of the Claimant- ESTAR transactional documents is not to challenge the sourcing arrangement itself — it is to determine the pricing applied within the supply chain. The Defendant has a legitimate interest in understanding whether the prices it was charged were commercially justified or included undisclosed markups, particularly in the context of its counterclaim. Under RDC 28.17(3), this purpose is plainly material to the outcome of the case.

3. Industry practice supports production.

In the garment sourcing industry, purchase orders and proforma invoices between a sourcing agent and a vendor are ordinary business records maintained as a matter of course. There is no credible basis for any confidentiality objection in respect of these documents, given that they define the commercial relationship that is directly in issue in these proceedings.

The Defendant asks the Court to order production of:

4. (a) All purchase orders issued by the Claimant to ESTAR in respect of garments supplied to the Defendant; (b) all quotations or proforma invoices provided by ESTAR to the Claimant; and (c) any other written arrangements evidencing the terms on which ESTAR supplied garments to the Claimant for onward supply to the Defendant, from April 2023 to January 2024.

Production ordered of purchase orders, quotations, proforma invoices and any other documents identifying the terms of supply between ESTAR and the Claimant between April 2023 and January 2024 in respect of garments supplied to the Defendant. Sufficiently material and relevant to the counterclaim.

Documents evidencing the commercial model used for the COME PLAY product line, including cost matrices, supplier pricing, FOB pricing, landed cost calculations, vendor pricing from ESTAR, and any commission calculations or margin analyses prepared by the Claimant or any employee of the Claimant.

These documents are relevant to determining the steps and procedures undertaken by the Claimant when sourcing suppliers and coordinating the manufacture of garments supplied to the Defendant under the Agreement. The Defendant's position is that the Claimant was responsible for sourcing suppliers and managing the production process, but in practice operated through third-party vendors, including EStar, rather than dealing directly with factories. The requested documents are therefore necessary to identify how suppliers were selected, how the sourcing process was carried out, and how pricing for the garments was determined, including whether the Claimant obtained pricing through third-party intermediaries before invoicing the Defendant. These documents will assist the Court in determining the Claimant's role in the sourcing process, the structure of the supply chain, and the basis on which the prices charged to the Defendant were derived.

The Defendant does not have access to the Claimant's pricing documentation or commercial modelling relating to supplier pricing and cost calculations.

Such documents would have been prepared or retained by the Claimant in the course of sourcing garments from suppliers and pricing the goods supplied to the Defendant and are therefore likely within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, commercial confidentiality, proportionality. The Request seeks disclosure of the Claimant's internal cost structures, supplier pricing, margin analyses, and commercial modelling, which are highly commercially sensitive and proprietary. Disclosure would cause serious prejudice to the Claimant's competitive position.

Further, the Request is not relevant to the issues in dispute. The Services Agreement imposes no obligation on the Claimant to disclose its supplier pricing or internal cost structures. The Claimant is not a fiduciary and owes no duty of cost transparency. The Defendant was invoiced based on agreed prices set out in the Line Plan and Order Confirmations. The Request also proceeds on an incorrect assumption of a costplus or agency model. The difference between supplier cost and invoice price reflects the Claimant's gross margin, including operational costs such as freight, duties, storage, insurance and staffing, and does not constitute any undisclosed or improper mark-up.

In the circumstances, the Claimant objects to this Request and will not produce the documents sought. difference between supplier cost and invoice price reflects the Claimant's gross margin, including operational costs such as freight, duties, storage, insurance and staffing, and does not constitute any undisclosed or improper mark- up.

In the circumstances, the Claimant objects to this Request and will not produce the documents sought.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The commercial confidentiality objection is insufficient.

If commercial sensitivity is a ground for objection, it must be treated as a qualified ground, not an absolute bar. The Court must weigh the confidentiality interest against the materiality of the documents. Here, the pricing structure of the COME PLAY product line is directly in issue: the Defendant's counterclaim includes allegations concerning the basis on which it was charged for goods. It is wellestablished in DIFC Court practice that documents going to the heart of a pricing dispute cannot be withheld solely on grounds of commercial sensitivity, particularly where confidential treatment (e.g. a confidentiality ring or redaction of third-party pricing) can adequately protect the Claimant's legitimate interests. If these documents are not protected by privilege they must be produced because they are material to the disputed issue.

2. Whether the Claimant is a fiduciary is itself a live issue.

The Claimant's assertion that it is "not a fiduciary" is a legal conclusion that is contested in these proceedings. The Defendant's case is that, to the extent the Claimant sourced goods through intermediaries and invoiced the Defendant without transparency as to the supply chain pricing, it owed duties of disclosure analogous to those of a fiduciary or agent. Whether those duties arose depends on the nature of the commercial model actually operated — which is precisely what the documents in Request 5 would establish.

3. The Claimant's characterisation of the margin as operational cost recovery is a matter for evidence, not objection.

The Claimant asserts that the difference between supplier cost and invoice price reflects freight, duties, storage, insurance, and staffing costs. If that is true, documents evidencing that breakdown will vindicate the Claimant's position. If the Defendant is wrong, production will defeat the counterclaim. The Claimant's refusal to produce these documents is inconsistent with confidence in its own characterisation.

4. The Defendant proposes production subject to a confidentiality order.

To address the Claimant’s confidentiality concern, the Defendant proposes that the Court order production of the cost matrices, FOB pricing, and landed cost calculations subject to a standard confidentiality order restricting use to these proceedings only. This is a proportionate and standard mechanism under RDC 28.28(5), which allows objections on grounds of commercial confidentiality only if the Court determines those concerns to be compelling. A confidentiality order appropriately balances the Claimant’s commercial interests with the Defendant’s entitlement to disclosure of relevant and material documents.

Production ordered subject to a confidentiality ring to be agreed between the parties or determined by the Court. The question of the role of the Claimant is in issue as is the basis of pricing.

All communications and documentation between the Claimant and ESTAR concerning the revision or increase in pricing for the "COME PLAY" product line, following the email dated 23 August 2023 from Mr. Anton Wong to Mr. Gajan Khanna stating that there would be a "significant increase", and any communications confirming, explaining or discussing that increase.

The email exchange dated 23 August 2023 titled "Revised RRP for COME PLAY" refers to a significant increase in pricing in relation to the relevant products. The requested communications are necessary to determine the basis for that asserted increase and whether it arose from pricing communicated by ESTAR or other suppliers involved in the manufacture of the garments supplied to the Defendant. The Defendant's position is that the Claimant sourced products through thirdparty vendors, including ESTAR, before invoicing the Defendant. Communications between the Claimant and ESTAR concerning pricing will therefore assist in determining whether any increase in pricing reflected supplier pricing changes or arose from adjustments made within the supply chain. Accordingly, the requested documents are relevant to understanding how pricing for the COME PLAY products was determined and communicated, including the basis for the "significant increase" referenced in the email.

The Defendant holds only a printed copy of the email dated 23 August 2023 from Mr. Anton Wong to Mr. Gajan Khanna referring to a "significant increase". The Defendant was not a party to communications between the Claimant and ESTAR regarding supplier pricing and therefore does not possess the subsequent communications or attachments requested above, nor the original electronic version of the email.

The email dated 23 August 2023 was sent by the Claimant and refers to pricing matters relating to the COME PLAY products. Any communications with ESTAR concerning the pricing increase would have been sent or received by the Claimant in the course of dealing with its supplier and are therefore likely within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, proportionality; incorrect premise.

The Request is based on a misinterpretation of the email dated 23 August 2023. The reference to a "significant increase" was not to any increase in supplier pricing or production costs, but to a potential increase in the Claimant's margins arising from revised recommended retail prices.
Further, to the extent any additional costs were referenced, these related to ancillary items such as swing tags, labels and barcodes, which were billed separately and were not included in the cost of producing the garments.

The Request therefore proceeds on an incorrect premise and seeks documents that are not relevant to the issues in dispute. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Claimant produces the email dated 23 August 2023 from Mr. Anton Wong to Mr. Gajan Khanna, which clarifies the context of the reference to a "significant increase".

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The Claimant's explanation of the "significant increase" raises more questions than it answers.

The Claimant now asserts that the reference to a "significant increase" in Mr. Wong's email was to an increase in the Claimant's own margins arising from revised RRPs, not a change in supplier costs. This explanation is material — and potentially more significant from the Defendant's perspective than a supplier cost increase would have been. If the Claimant was revising its own margins in response to RRP changes without disclosing this to the Defendant, this is directly relevant to the Defendant's counterclaim concerning undisclosed pricing adjustments. The requested communications between the Claimant and ESTAR are therefore necessary to determine whether the pricing increase communicated to the Defendant had any foundation in actual supplier costs or was an entirely unilateral margin decision.

2. The ancillary items explanation does not address the core request.

The Claimant's explanation that additional costs related to "swing tags, labels and barcodes" does not address the communications referred to in the subject line of the 23 August 2023 email ("Revised RRP for COME PLAY") or the basis for the "significant increase" stated by Mr. Wong. Whether or not ancillary items were billed separately is beside the point — the Request seeks the underlying communications with ESTAR that preceded or accompanied that pricing communication.

3. Production of the email alone does not satisfy the Request.

As with Request 1, producing the document that gave rise to the Request is not a response to the Request. The email is the anchor document — the Defendant seeks the communications behind it. If the Claimant's characterisation of the "significant increase" is correct, those communications will confirm it. If it is not correct, the communications will reveal the true basis for the pricing change. Either way, they are material.

4. The Claimant’s reliance on an alleged “misinterpretation” is a contrived basis to avoid disclosure.

The Claimant’s assertion that the Request is based on a “misinterpretation” is unfounded and appears to be a convenient attempt to avoid producing relevant documents. No such misunderstanding has been established. Rather, the Claimant is seeking to substitute its own after-the-fact explanation for the contemporaneous record while withholding the very communications that would objectively confirm or contradict its position. This is not a proper basis to resist disclosure. The existence of competing interpretations of the 23 August 2023 email only underscores the necessity of the requested documents. The Claimant cannot defeat a disclosure request by asserting its own preferred narrative in place of producing the underlying evidence.

5.The Defendant maintains this Request.

The Defendant seeks all communications (emails, messaging platform exchanges, attachments) between the Claimant and ESTAR from June 2023 to January 2024 relating to pricing, cost changes, or price revisions for the COME PLAY product line.

Production ordered. Sufficiently relevant and material.

All product development images, photographs, design images, sample images, developmentstage photographs, or other visual documentation relating to products ordered by the Defendant between April 2023 and January 2024, including images created, shared, or referenced during the development process for the products supplied to the Defendant. This includes all images attached to or referenced in product development communications, internal development records, supplier communications, or development invoices, including those relating to Invoice 0166.

These documents are relevant to determining whether the Product Development Services invoiced under Invoice 0166 correspond to development work carried out in relation to the products supplied to the Defendant. The requested images will assist in establishing the nature, scope and extent of the development work undertaken during the product development stage, including the design process, sampling process, and development of the relevant product styles. In particular, the documents may assist in determining whether the Claimant was directly involved in the development process or whether development work was undertaken by suppliers, vendors, or factories involved in the supply chain. Production of these documents will therefore assist the Court in assessing whether the Product Development Services fee invoiced by the Claimant is substantiated and contractually payable under Schedule 3 of the Agreement.

Despite repeated requests, the Defendant does not possess the product development images or related visual documentation created during the development process. Such materials were requested from the Claimant on multiple occasions, including on 24 August 2023, but were never received.

Product development images and related visual documentation would have been created or received by the Claimant in the course of performing the Product Development Services invoiced under Invoice 0166 and coordinating development with suppliers and factories. These documents should therefore be within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, proportionality; documents already in Defendant's possession.

The Claimant notes that the Defendant's assertion that it does not possess product development images or related documentation is incorrect. The Defendant holds a comprehensive physical binder containing signed-off samples, lab dips, fabric approvals, product development images and critical path documentation for all styles, which was provided to and retained by the Defendant throughout the project. The Defendant also received all final approved physical samples. These materials constitute the primary record of the product development process and approvals. The Claimant further notes that the Defendant's allegation that product development images were requested on multiple occasions, including on 24 August 2023, but were never received, is incorrect and is expressly denied. The existence of this binder is also indirectly acknowledged by the Defendant in paragraph 10 of its Defence with Counterclaim dated 25 August 2025. The Claimant has further requested production of this binder by way of Request 5 in its own Document Production Requests.

Further, substantial product development documentation, including design files, CADs, images and related materials, was shared directly with the Defendant during the development process and is therefore already within its possession. In any event, contemporaneous communications between the Claimant and the Defendant, including emails and messaging exchanges, demonstrate that the Claimant performed its product development role in full, including conducting sample reviews, fittings, incorporating feedback and obtaining approvals. There is no contemporaneous evidence of any complaint by the Defendant during the contractual period regarding the Claimant's performance of these functions. The Claimant further notes that the Defendant remains under an obligation to disclose the physical binder and related development materials in its possession and reserves its rights to seek appropriate relief in this regard.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The Claimant's denial of the request history is a factual dispute requiring documentary resolution.

The Claimant denies that product development images were requested on 24 August 2023 but never received. This is a disputed factual matter — and the most direct way to resolve it is for the Claimant to produce the digital images it says it provided. If the images were shared at the time, there will be a contemporaneous record (email attachment, file transfer, or messaging platform exchange) demonstrating delivery. The Claimant’s denial of the request history does not constitute a valid objection to production. Under RDC 28.28, a party may only refuse production on specific, recognised grounds; a mere factual denial is not one of them. Moreover, under RDC 28.17(3), the images are plainly relevant and material to the Defendant’s counterclaim, as they demonstrate the content, timing, and completeness of product development communications. The Claimant cannot avoid disclosure by simply asserting it did not receive the request.

2. Invoice 0166 must be substantiated.

The specific purpose of this Request is to substantiate Invoice 0166 for Product Development Services. Where a party invoices for services, it bears the evidential burden of demonstrating that those services were performed. Digital images, design files, and development records in the Claimant's own possession are the most direct evidence of performance. Their non- production would leave the Claimant unable to establish the factual basis for Invoice 0166 at trial.

3. This is a disclosure request, not an invitation for reciprocal disclosure.

This Request is made by the Defendant for the production of documents within the Claimant’s control. It is not an opportunity for the Claimant to seek disclosure from the Defendant or to reframe the Request by introducing its own evidentiary narrative in place of proper production. The Claimant’s objection improperly attempts to substitute explanation for disclosure and to shift the focus away from the documents sought. The applicable standard is whether the requested documents are relevant and material — not whether the Claimant prefers to rely on its own characterisation of events. If the Claimant’s position is correct, the requested communications will corroborate it. If not, they will reveal the true position. In either case, the Claimant is required to produce responsive documents, not argument.

4.The Defendant maintains this Request in full. Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. This Request is the most directly material document category in the entire schedule.

ESTAR invoices to the Claimant are the primary documentary record of the actual cost incurred by the Claimant for the goods supplied to the Defendant. When read together with the invoices issued by the Claimant to the Defendant, they form the complete supply chain pricing record. The Defendant’s counterclaim includes allegations that it was charged amounts that do not reflect the true cost of the goods sourced. Absent disclosure of the ESTAR invoices, neither the Defendant nor the Court can properly assess those allegations.

In circumstances where the Claimant’s pricing and alleged markup form part of the issues in dispute, these documents are plainly relevant and material. To the extent that no claim of legal privilege is asserted, any objection based solely on commercial sensitivity cannot justify nonproduction.

2. The commercial confidentiality objection should not be upheld in the circumstances of this case.

The Claimant's supplier pricing from ESTAR is at the heart of the dispute. This is not a peripheral commercial sensitivity concern — it is the central factual issue. Under DIFC Court practice, confidentiality alone does not relieve a party of its production obligations under RDC 28.16– 28.40. The Defendant proposes: (a) production under a confidentiality order limiting use to these proceedings; and (b) redaction of any third-party pricing information that is not relevant to the products supplied to the Defendant.

3. The "agreed prices" argument does not defeat the Request.

The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant was invoiced on agreed prices in the Line Plan does not address the Defendant's counterclaim, which is concerned not with whether a price was agreed but whether the agreed price was commercially proper given the Claimant's obligations. Whether the Line Plan prices were inflated relative to ESTAR's charges is exactly what the ESTAR invoices would establish.

4. The Defendant asks the Court to order production under a confidentiality order.

The Defendant requests that, if production is ordered, it be subject to an appropriate confidentiality regime. Confidentiality concerns may be addressed by the Court pursuant to its powers under RDC 28.42, read together with its general case management powers under RDC 3.1, including by ordering restricted disclosure or other suitable safeguards.

Production ordered. The issue as to whether the Defendant has the documents is live and is most easily dealt with by ordering production.

All invoices issued by ESTAR to the Claimant from April 2023 – July 2024 in reference to the products ordered for the Defendant including invoices related to product development issued by ESTAR to the Claimant.

These documents are directly relevant to determining the pricing of the garments supplied to the Defendant and the basis on which the Claimant issued invoices to the Defendant. Production of these documents will assist the Court in understanding the costs incurred by the Claimant when sourcing garments from its suppliers.

The Defendant was not party to transactions between ESTAR and the Claimant and does not possess invoices issued by ESTAR to the Claimant.

Such invoices would have been received and retained by the Claimant in the course of purchasing or sourcing garments from ESTAR and are therefore likely within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Lack of relevance / materiality, commercial confidentiality, proportionality.

The Request seeks disclosure of invoices issued by ESTAR to the Claimant, which reflect the Claimant's confidential supplier pricing and cost of goods. Disclosure of such documents would reveal the Claimant's cost structure and profit margins, causing prejudice to its commercial position. Further, the Request is not relevant to the issues in dispute. The Defendant's stated purpose presupposes a cost-plus or agency relationship which does not exist. The Claimant invoiced the Defendant based on agreed prices set out in the Line Plan and Order Confirmations, and the Claimant's cost of acquiring goods from ESTAR is not relevant to whether those prices were contractually agreed. In the circumstances, the Claimant objects to this Request and will not produce the documents sought.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

3. This Request is the most directly material document category in the entire schedule.

ESTAR invoices to the Claimant are the primary documentary record of the actual cost incurred by the Claimant for the goods supplied to the Defendant. When read together with the invoices issued by the Claimant to the Defendant, they form the complete supply chain pricing record. The Defendant’s counterclaim includes allegations that it was charged amounts that do not reflect the true cost of the goods sourced. Absent disclosure of the ESTAR invoices, neither the Defendant nor the Court can properly assess those allegations. In circumstances where the Claimant’s pricing and alleged markup form part of the issues in dispute, these documents are plainly relevant and material. To the extent that no claim of legal privilege is asserted, any objection based solely on commercial sensitivity cannot justify nonproduction.

4. The commercial confidentiality objection should not be upheld in the circumstances of this case.

The Claimant's supplier pricing from ESTAR is at the heart of the dispute. This is not a peripheral commercial sensitivity concern — it is the central factual issue. Under DIFC Court practice, confidentiality alone does not relieve a party of its production obligations under RDC 28.16– 28.40. The Defendant proposes: (a) production under a confidentiality order limiting use to these proceedings; and (b) redaction of any third-party pricing information that is not relevant to the products supplied to the Defendant.

5. The "agreed prices" argument does not defeat the Request.

The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant was invoiced on agreed prices in the Line Plan does not address the Defendant's counterclaim, which is concerned not with whether a price was agreed but whether the agreed price was commercially proper given the Claimant's obligations. Whether the Line Plan prices were inflated relative to ESTAR's charges is exactly what the ESTAR invoices would establish.

6. The Defendant asks the Court to order production under a confidentiality order.

The Defendant requests that, if production is ordered, it be subject to an appropriate confidentiality regime. Confidentiality concerns may be addressed by the Court pursuant to its powers under RDC 28.42, read together with its general case management powers under RDC 3.1, including by ordering restricted disclosure or other suitable safeguards.

Production ordered subject to a confidentiality ring to be agreed by the parties or, in default, imposed by the Court. The documents are relevant and material.

All invoices issued by FILA (HK) LTD to ESTAR from April 2023 – July 2024 in reference to the products being manufactured for the Defendant through ESTAR.

Upon the Defendant's investigation, FILA HK has been identified as the factory and in order to establish the markup of the products starting from the factory all the way to the Defendant. The invoices issued by FILA to ESTAR would provide the base price to which markups were added. These documents are directly relevant to determining whether margins were applied prior to issuing invoices to the Defendant and whether such charges were disclosed in accordance with the agreement between the parties. Production of these documents will assist the Court in determining whether the Claimant applied undisclosed markups and/or secret commissions, in breach of its contractual and fiduciary obligations. Further, these invoices will enable the Court to determine the number of instances in which the Defendant was subjected to mark-ups originating from the factory and applied through the supply chain. This will allow for the calculation and identification of any excess amounts paid by the Defendant for products, including instances where the pricing applied was not aligned with the quality of the goods supplied.

The Defendant was not party to transactions between FILA (HK) LTD and ESTAR and does not possess invoices issued between those entities.

To the extent that such invoices were shared with or relied upon by the Claimant in the course of sourcing garments from ESTAR or managing the manufacturing process, they may be within the Claimant's possession, custody or control.

Objection: Documents not within Claimant's possession, custody or control; lack of relevance / materiality. The invoices sought are commercial documents between third parties, namely FILA (HK) Ltd and ESTAR. The Claimant was not a party to the contractual or invoicing relationship between those entities, and does not hold, and has never held, copies of such invoices. The Claimant further clarifies that FILA (HK) Ltd acted solely as a third-party quality control inspector and was not the manufacturing factory (which was Ningbo Matching), and therefore would not be the entity issuing manufacturing invoices in any event. In the circumstances, the Claimant is not in a position to produce the documents sought.

Defendant's Response to Claimant's Objection:

1. The Claimant's clarification on FILA's identity changes the identity of the documents sought but not their purpose.

In light of the Claimant's clarification that FILA (HK) Ltd acted as a quality control inspector and that the manufacturing factory was Ningbo Matching, the Defendant amends this Request: it now seeks invoices issued by Ningbo Matching to ESTAR from April 2023 to July 2024 in respect of garments manufactured for onward supply to the Defendant.

2. The "not within Claimant's control" objection must be verified.

The Claimant asserts that it does not hold and has never held invoices issued between Ningbo Matching and ESTAR. While this is framed as a factual assertion, it remains unsubstantiated. Given that the Claimant was coordinating the supply chain — including instructing and monitoring the manufacturing factory and the vendor ESTAR — it is reasonably to be expected that such invoices would have been shared with the Claimant as part of the project management and cost reconciliation process.

To the extent the Claimant relies on an objection based on lack of possession, custody or control, such a position falls within RDC 28.40 and must be properly articulated. A bare assertion is insufficient. The Claimant should confirm, following reasonable enquiries, whether such documents exist and whether they are or have been within its possession, custody or control.

3. Third-party production application as alternative.

If the Claimant maintains that these documents are not within its possession or control, the Defendant reserves the right to apply under RDC 28.30 for an order requiring production of these documents from ESTAR and/or Ningbo Matching directly as third- party production orders. The Claimant should be aware that its clarification of the supply chain structure (identifying Ningbo Matching as the factory) provides the Defendant with the information necessary to pursue such an application.

4. The Request is maintained in amended form.

The Defendant seeks: all invoices issued by Ningbo Matching (NB-Matching) to ESTAR from April 2023 to July 2024 in respect of garments manufactured for onward supply to the Defendant, to the extent any such invoices are within the Claimant's possession, custody or control, accompanied by a verified statement of non-possession if they are not.

Request denied. Insufficiently material,