the LPU VAGO Agreement
”). Clause 2 of the LPU VAGO Agreement states that “The Effective Date for this Assignment and Transfer Agreement shall be 1 January 2021”. For clarity, it is the First and Second Defendants’ position that the Effective Date pursuant to the LPU VAGO Agreement was 1 January 2021).1.4Typically, agreements such as those referred to in this document are required to be signed by individuals in different jurisdictions and as such it is the usual practice for an individual to sign an agreement before sending it to the next relevant individual, with at least one signature generally conforming to the date the agreement is stated to be made.1.5While the First and Second Defendants are unable to state the precise date upon which any of the agreements were signed, they would have been generally contemporaneous with at least one signature likely conforming to the date of the agreement.”11The claimants took the view that this response was not in compliance with my order of 4 April 2022. They have therefore applied for an order specifying in more detail the steps that the first and second defendant must now take in relation to identifying the dates of signature of the various written assignments in issue.12The principal argument, advanced by Mr Benzie, was that the claimants’ application is correctly characterised as an application for early specific disclosure; this is not a case in which early disclosure is appropriate.13In my view, that ship has sailed. Had the first and second defendants responded to the claimants’ application of 25 March 2022 in due time and argued that early disclosure was not appropriate in this case, I may have been receptive to that argument. They did not. The application was unopposed and the order of 4 April 2022 was made. If at that stage the first and second defendants had applied to set aside or vary the order of 4 April 2022, I may have been sympathetic to such an application. I need state no view. Alternatively, the first and second defendants might have said that, contrary to what one might expect, they were unable to state the dates on which the relevant documents were signed and that it should be sorted out by disclosure in due course. However, the first and second defendants made no such applications. The order stands.14When a court makes an order, it is a serious, not a trivial matter. The party subject to the order has a choice. It may appeal. Where appropriate, it may apply to set aside or vary the order. If it does none of these things, it must comply with the order. Compliance is not optional. In particular, the party may not act as if the order had never been made and reopen argument directed to the grounds on which the order was sought and made.15The issues before me today are, first, whether the first and second defendants are in breach of my order of 4 April 2022. Secondly, if they are in breach, what order should be made today as a consequence of the breach?16I should also make another matter clear. In his skeleton argument, Mr Benzie argued that these proceedings are not appropriate for this court. That may or may not be right, but no application has been made to transfer this case to the general Chancery List. Whether or not the trial should be heard in this court is irrelevant to today’s hearing.17It seems to me that the first and second defendants are in breach of the order of 4 April 2022. That order required them within seven days to state the date on which each of the relevant documents were signed. The first and second defendants have not stated the dates and have not said that it is impossible to identify the dates. Instead, they take the position that disclosure should take place in the usual way and that rather than take the trouble to attempt to deduce the dates now, that task should happen later.18The agreements concerned must all have been signed by individuals empowered to bind either the first or second defendant or its sister company LPE. It is not easy to see why identifying those individuals should be difficult or why those individuals are unable to do their best to state the dates on which they signed the documents. At the least they must be able to state what they have done in order to find out the relevant dates and set that out in evidence. They must also be able to state what they have done to find documents which may well contain underlying metadata which would reveal the relevant dates. I can see why the claimants are suspicious. 19On the other hand, I am not prepared to make an order today which, at least on any plausible contention advanced by the first and second defendants, will result in the first and second defendants being almost inevitably in breach of the order.20I will therefore hear counsel on the appropriate terms of the order I should make, given what I have said.__________