rather than documents bearing directly upon the contractual rights and obligations in dispute between the parties.

The Claimant has failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the requested documents and any pleaded issue. Even if such documents exist, their probative value would be minimal and substantially outweighed by the burden and confidentiality concerns arising from their disclosure. Accordingly, the request should be refused.

1.b The Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is irrelevant, disproportionate and speculative.

1.b The Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is irrelevant, disproportionate and speculative.

The request seeks broad categories of internal employment and management documents without identifying any specific document likely to advance a pleaded issue. The Claimant’s assertion that the appointment process may have affected project management is unsupported by evidence and cannot justify disclosure.

The request therefore lacks the requisite materiality and specificity required for an order for production and should be rejected.

1.c The Defendant objects to this request because it seeks documents that are neither necessary nor material to the determination of the issues before the Court.

The identity of internal personal assigned responsibilities within the Defendant’s organization is an internal management matter. The Claimant has not explained how such documents would establish or disprove any pleaded allegation.

The request is based upon a speculative assumption that internal staffing arrangements may have contributed to project issues. Such speculation cannot justify compulsory disclosure.

The request is therefore irrelevant, disproportionate and constitutes an impermissible fishing exercise.

The Defendant has taken a position in its defence that it decided not to settle the payments due to the Claimant on account of the defective works performed by the Claimant’s resources. The Claimant has consistently denied this and insisted that the Defendant has raised this defence as an afterthought after the Claimant pushed for payment of its outstanding invoices.

No formal communication was made to the Claimant of the Defendant’s reason not to settle the payments due to the Claimant until the Claimant followed up for payments for previous months. It is not clear if the decision to delay payment to the Claimant was a conscious and deliberate decision as alleged by the Defendant or if it was made as an afterthought after the Claimant insisted on payment.

A review of the contemporaneous emails, letters and other documents of the Defendant that sets out its justification to arrive at this decision would make it clear if the Defendant was genuinely aggrieved by the performance of the Claimant’s resources or if the concerns were an afterthought.

These are internal documents of the Defendant that would explain the reasons for its decision not to settle the payments due to the Claimant.

The Claimant does not have access to these documents.

2. The Defendant objects to this request because it seeks internal deliberations, assessments, analyses and communications concerning the Defendant’s decision-making process.

The issue before the Court is not the Defendant’s subjective internal reasoning but whether, objectively, the Defendant had contractual and factual grounds for withholding payment. The Defendant’s internal discussions do not determine the existence or otherwise of those grounds.

Moreover, the request is excessively broad and would encompass confidential internal communications, management discussions and potentially legally privileged material. The Claimant seeks “all documents describing the Defendant’s reasons for withholding payment without identifying any particular document or category likely to be material.

The request is therefore disproportionate, overboard and lacks sufficient relevance to justify production.

The Defendant, as part of its standard production of documents has disclosed an internal email of the Defendant dated 17 June 2025 (from David Ewing to Sarah Zohaib at 11.02 AM) that requests the following information:

“Kit is putting together a justification outlining the poor performance for BimGrafx (is this yours or Jen’s?) Do you think you can pull up any past communication outlining anything we can use as justification?”

Whilst the Claimant is not privy to any such past communication, this email indicates that there were communications from the Defendant setting out the defects in performance by the Claimant’s resources. The Defendant’s entire defence hinges on defective performance by the Claimant’s resources and therefore these documents ought to form part of the disclosed documents.

The Claimant has not received any communication from the Defendant setting out any defects in performance.

If there are any such documents in the Defendant’s possession that sets out proof of any defective performance by the Claimant, the Claimant is entitled to review them.

3. The Defendant objects to this request in so far as it is drafted as it is drafted in terms that are excessively, broad, vague and disproportionate.

The request seeks all emails, letters, Microsoft Teams communications and other documents relating to alleged performance concerns over a four-month period. Such a request is not narrowly tailored and would require an extensive and burdensome review of large volume of documents.

Further, the request appears to be based on a mischarecterisation of a single internal email dated 17 June 2025. The existence of an email referring to potential justification does not establish the existence of further responsive documents within the scope alleged by the Claimant.

To the extent that the Defendant relies upon specific communications evidencing performance deficiencies, such documents have already been disclosed or will be disclosed in accordance with the Defendant’s disclosure obligations. However, the Defendant objects to any wider request seeking all internal communications, discussions, deliberations and commentary concerning performance issues, as such a request is disproportionate and extends well beyond what is necessary for the fair resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, the request should either be refused or substantially narrowed.

Request refused. Insofar as the Defendant seeks to rely on alleged defects in the Claimant’s performance, it will be obliged to produce the same on standard disclosure. If they have not been produced, the likely inference is that they do not exist.