The director in this case sought all correspondence between the liquidators and the SoS concerning the companies’ affairs, arguing that he required this material to understand why the books and records were said to be inadequate, prepare his defence, and ensure a “level playing field’ in what he described as quasi criminal proceedings.
The SoS resisted on the basis that the application was “unspecific and wholly disproportionate”, noting that requests for specific disclosure in Part 8 CDDA proceedings are abnormal, particularly when made before a director has even set out his case. He argued the application resembled a “fishing expedition”, since the adequacy of accounting records must be determined from the records themselves, not from communications with the liquidators. The liquidators similarly argued that non party disclosure under CPR 31.17 is exceptional and that the application was “misconceived, vague and inadequately explained”. Moreover, the category of documents sought was “unnecessarily wide”. They stressed that what they had said to the SoS (or vice versa) was irrelevant to whether adequate records were delivered up and maintained.
The court held that the adequacy of accounting records is determined by the records themselves, not by communications between the SoS and the liquidators. The material was held to be irrelevant to the central issue of whether adequate accounting records were maintained or delivered up, and therefore unnecessary for a fair trial. On that basis alone, the application failed.
Even in the unusual context of a director seeking disclosure in CDDA proceedings, the court reaffirmed that correspondence between the SoS and liquidators is not disclosable simply because the director wants to understand the case against him. Disqualification claims remain a self-contained Part 8 process with no routine disclosure. Unless the material sought directly concerns whether the director kept and delivered up adequate records, applications for wide-ranging or non-party disclosure will almost certainly fail.
Lawless v Secretary of State for Business and Trade & Ors [2026] EWHC 48 (Ch)
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.