The High Court has refused the defendants’ application for discovery across five disputed categories in a commercial case brought by Nokia Solutions and Networks UK Limited against three companies, including two trading as Imagine Networks.
In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2016, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the parties had been unable to agree on the requests after exchanging proposals for voluntary discovery. The ruling concerned what documents had to be produced at this stage; it did not decide the underlying claim.
The defendants sought documents about Nokia’s financial and technical standing when Motorola allegedly assigned it the Master Service Agreement, and about discussions between Nokia and Motorola before the alleged assignment. They argued that the assignment depended on the proposed assignee having equivalent financial and technical standing to Motorola. The defence maintained that the assignment did not comply with the agreement and was null and void.
The judge made no order on that category. He considered Nokia’s offer to explain its standing at the time and provide documents supporting its position reasonable and sufficient. He said the defendants could apply again if Nokia did not provide reasonable information under that proposal.
The court refused a request for documents identifying who was on whose behalf for payments already made to Nokia or Motorola, since those payments were not being claimed in the proceedings. Nokia had offered to provide a schedule of related payment information if the first or second defendant supplied a schedule of payments it had made. The judge considered that offer reasonable but made no order requiring it.
The judge also refused requests for documents concerning Nokia’s review and re-issue of invoices, credit notes, and the calculation and basis of invoices. He described the broad request concerning the invoice review as neither relevant nor necessary and as a fishing exercise. The €268,991.80 covered by credit given to the defendants was not part of the sum being claimed, he said.
For the final category, the court noted that the defendants had not issued a dispute notice about the invoices within the period provided for in the agreement. The defence admitted that invoices totalling €22,780,000 had been issued to the first defendant on 19 September 2011, and those were the invoices Nokia intended to rely on at trial. The judge found the further discovery request irrelevant or unnecessary and, in any event, oppressive and disproportionate. He refused an order for it.