The High Court has ordered Manders Terrace Limited and two other respondents to disclose documents about the impact of posts by former Web Summit chief executive Patrick Cosgrave concerning Israel, as well as his resignation and the company’s response. The ruling concerns discovery only; it does not decide the underlying oppression claims or whether the posts caused loss.
Lazvisax Limited, which holds a 7% stake in Manders Terrace, alleges the respondents oppressed it as a minority shareholder and disregarded its interests. It says the posts and related statements published by The Ditch damaged the company and its business. The respondents deny oppression and dispute whether the events caused damage.
In a judgment delivered on 19 April 2024, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts directed discovery in five categories. They cover communications between the respondents and third parties relating to Cosgrave’s and The Ditch’s statements; communications among current or former directors and executive team members referring to the posts; steps taken or planned to mitigate any impact on Web Summit’s business and reputation, including engagement with shareholder proposals; documents about Cosgrave’s resignation as CEO and director, including its reasons; and documents concerning the financial impact on the company of the pleaded events.
The categories generally cover documents created on or after 7 October 2023. The mitigation category excludes personal or confidential information about third-party candidates considered to replace Cosgrave as CEO. The judge said responsive material need only be disclosed once, even if it falls within more than one category.
The court refused two other requests. It rejected a broad category seeking documents about complaints, withdrawals and other responses concerning any Web Summit event, finding it insufficiently tied to the posts and largely duplicative of the communications category granted. It also refused a separate category about the decision to stop funding The Ditch, citing admissions and overlap with the ordered categories.
The judge said the existing, extensive discovery order aimed at valuing Lazvisax’s shares did not clearly cover all the later material about alleged damage and oppression. A separate category for financial impact would provide clarity, while avoiding duplicate disclosure. The court did not determine whether any loss occurred.
The matter was listed for mention on 25 April 2024 so the parties could address the timetable for discovery, identify the respondents’ deponents and make submissions on legal costs. The judgment does not state the outcome of that later mention.