[2024] EWHC 2329 (TCC)

JLR says that the relevant line in schedule 1-2 does not mention JLR or the DCHA specifically, nor any contract date, and that the contract ID codes have not been properly explained. It says that Kyndryl pleads in its Reply that there was a common understanding between Kyndryl and IBM that the reference to a contract with Tata Motors Ltd included the DCHA, but that Kyndryl has adduced no evidence of such an understanding in response to the application.

However, in the light of Mr Graves’ evidence, as set out above, I am satisfied that there is, at least, a real prospect of Kyndryl proving at trial that the schedule is referring to the DCHA. Two facts strongly support Kyndryl’s case: (a) the contract ID code matches that used for the DCHA; and (b) Mr Graves could find no other contract that was associated with Tata Motors. I do not think that it is necessary for present purposes for Kyndryl to adduce specific evidence of a common understanding beyond the material in Mr Graves’ statement.