April 29, 2026
The proceedings arise from a substantial dispute between Dandara Jersey Limited and its former managing director, Mr Martin Clancy, following the termination of his employment after more than thirty years. Dandara claims repayment of approximately £6.4 million advanced to Mr Clancy during his employment. Mr Clancy resists that claim and counterclaims for in excess of £11 million in unpaid bonus entitlements, relying heavily on a written ‘Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment’ said to document long standing remuneration arrangements, including a £5 million loyalty bonus (the Statement).
Central to the dispute is the authenticity and provenance of the Statement. While Mr Clancy produced a copy and asserted that the document was signed in 2018 and backdated to reflect earlier agreed terms, Dandara denies that the document was ever executed on its behalf and raises serious concerns about its creation, execution and subsequent handling. Crucially, despite repeated requests over a period exceeding a year, Mr Clancy failed to produce the original document, eventually asserting that he no longer had it and suggesting that it might be in Dandara’s possession.
Dandara applied under RCR 6/17(5) for production of the original Statement and, in default, for detailed affidavit evidence addressing its creation, chain of custody and dissemination. It also invoked RCR 6/15 to seek further information necessary to understand and prepare its case. The defendant resisted the application, contending that production of the original was unnecessary and that any further explanation should await witness statements after discovery.
The Court rejected that approach. It held that once a party pleads reliance on a document, RCR 6/17 is plainly engaged and production of the original must follow if it is within that party’s possession, custody or control. Even if the original could not be produced, the Court retained wide powers to require early discovery and sworn explanation of what had become of it, together with disclosure of copies and metadata. This was particularly so where the authenticity of the document lay at the heart of the case.
Distinguishing between matters of discovery and matters of evidence, the Court declined to compel answers to all of Dandara’s questions at this stage, but ordered targeted further information under RCR 6/15 where necessary to understand the defendant’s pleaded case and to prepare a response. Drawing on English authority under CPR Part 18, the Court emphasised that such orders are not confined to clarifying pleadings, but may be required to avoid unfairness and procedural imbalance where critical facts are exclusively within one party’s knowledge.
The Court ordered Mr Clancy to produce the original Statement if he had it, to give verified discovery of all copies (including metadata) and contemporaneous documents, to explain fully what had happened to the original, and to provide specified technical information concerning the device used to create the document. Limited further information about execution of the Statement was also ordered to be provided on affidavit. Directions were otherwise adjourned to allow proper amendment of the pleadings.
The judgment underlines that parties cannot rely on disputed documents while withholding originals or deferring explanation. Where authenticity is central, the Court will require early, structured transparency to prevent prolonged forensic manoeuvring. The decision is particularly instructive on the interaction between discovery and requests for further information, and on the Court’s willingness to intervene robustly to maintain equality of arms in high value, document driven disputes.
The proceedings arise from a substantial dispute between Dandara Jersey Limited and its former managing director, Mr Martin Clancy, following the termination of his employment after more than thirty years. Dandara claims repayment of approximately £6.4 million advanced to Mr Clancy during his employment. Mr Clancy resists that claim and counterclaims for in excess of £11 million in unpaid bonus entitlements, relying heavily on a written ‘Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment’ said to document long standing remuneration arrangements, including a £5 million loyalty bonus (the Statement).
Central to the dispute is the authenticity and provenance of the Statement. While Mr Clancy produced a copy and asserted that the document was signed in 2018 and backdated to reflect earlier agreed terms, Dandara denies that the document was ever executed on its behalf and raises serious concerns about its creation, execution and subsequent handling. Crucially, despite repeated requests over a period exceeding a year, Mr Clancy failed to produce the original document, eventually asserting that he no longer had it and suggesting that it might be in Dandara’s possession.
Dandara applied under RCR 6/17(5) for production of the original Statement and, in default, for detailed affidavit evidence addressing its creation, chain of custody and dissemination. It also invoked RCR 6/15 to seek further information necessary to understand and prepare its case. The defendant resisted the application, contending that production of the original was unnecessary and that any further explanation should await witness statements after discovery.
The Court rejected that approach. It held that once a party pleads reliance on a document, RCR 6/17 is plainly engaged and production of the original must follow if it is within that party’s possession, custody or control. Even if the original could not be produced, the Court retained wide powers to require early discovery and sworn explanation of what had become of it, together with disclosure of copies and metadata. This was particularly so where the authenticity of the document lay at the heart of the case.
Distinguishing between matters of discovery and matters of evidence, the Court declined to compel answers to all of Dandara’s questions at this stage, but ordered targeted further information under RCR 6/15 where necessary to understand the defendant’s pleaded case and to prepare a response. Drawing on English authority under CPR Part 18, the Court emphasised that such orders are not confined to clarifying pleadings, but may be required to avoid unfairness and procedural imbalance where critical facts are exclusively within one party’s knowledge.
The Court ordered Mr Clancy to produce the original Statement if he had it, to give verified discovery of all copies (including metadata) and contemporaneous documents, to explain fully what had happened to the original, and to provide specified technical information concerning the device used to create the document. Limited further information about execution of the Statement was also ordered to be provided on affidavit. Directions were otherwise adjourned to allow proper amendment of the pleadings.
The judgment underlines that parties cannot rely on disputed documents while withholding originals or deferring explanation. Where authenticity is central, the Court will require early, structured transparency to prevent prolonged forensic manoeuvring. The decision is particularly instructive on the interaction between discovery and requests for further information, and on the Court’s willingness to intervene robustly to maintain equality of arms in high value, document driven disputes.
The proceedings arise from a substantial dispute between Dandara Jersey Limited and its former managing director, Mr Martin Clancy, following the termination of his employment after more than thirty years. Dandara claims repayment of approximately £6.4 million advanced to Mr Clancy during his employment. Mr Clancy resists that claim and counterclaims for in excess of £11 million in unpaid bonus entitlements, relying heavily on a written ‘Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment’ said to document long standing remuneration arrangements, including a £5 million loyalty bonus (the Statement).
Central to the dispute is the authenticity and provenance of the Statement. While Mr Clancy produced a copy and asserted that the document was signed in 2018 and backdated to reflect earlier agreed terms, Dandara denies that the document was ever executed on its behalf and raises serious concerns about its creation, execution and subsequent handling. Crucially, despite repeated requests over a period exceeding a year, Mr Clancy failed to produce the original document, eventually asserting that he no longer had it and suggesting that it might be in Dandara’s possession.
Dandara applied under RCR 6/17(5) for production of the original Statement and, in default, for detailed affidavit evidence addressing its creation, chain of custody and dissemination. It also invoked RCR 6/15 to seek further information necessary to understand and prepare its case. The defendant resisted the application, contending that production of the original was unnecessary and that any further explanation should await witness statements after discovery.
The Court rejected that approach. It held that once a party pleads reliance on a document, RCR 6/17 is plainly engaged and production of the original must follow if it is within that party’s possession, custody or control. Even if the original could not be produced, the Court retained wide powers to require early discovery and sworn explanation of what had become of it, together with disclosure of copies and metadata. This was particularly so where the authenticity of the document lay at the heart of the case.
Distinguishing between matters of discovery and matters of evidence, the Court declined to compel answers to all of Dandara’s questions at this stage, but ordered targeted further information under RCR 6/15 where necessary to understand the defendant’s pleaded case and to prepare a response. Drawing on English authority under CPR Part 18, the Court emphasised that such orders are not confined to clarifying pleadings, but may be required to avoid unfairness and procedural imbalance where critical facts are exclusively within one party’s knowledge.
The Court ordered Mr Clancy to produce the original Statement if he had it, to give verified discovery of all copies (including metadata) and contemporaneous documents, to explain fully what had happened to the original, and to provide specified technical information concerning the device used to create the document. Limited further information about execution of the Statement was also ordered to be provided on affidavit. Directions were otherwise adjourned to allow proper amendment of the pleadings.
The judgment underlines that parties cannot rely on disputed documents while withholding originals or deferring explanation. Where authenticity is central, the Court will require early, structured transparency to prevent prolonged forensic manoeuvring. The decision is particularly instructive on the interaction between discovery and requests for further information, and on the Court’s willingness to intervene robustly to maintain equality of arms in high value, document driven disputes.
The proceedings arise from a substantial dispute between Dandara Jersey Limited and its former managing director, Mr Martin Clancy, following the termination of his employment after more than thirty years. Dandara claims repayment of approximately £6.4 million advanced to Mr Clancy during his employment. Mr Clancy resists that claim and counterclaims for in excess of £11 million in unpaid bonus entitlements, relying heavily on a written ‘Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment’ said to document long standing remuneration arrangements, including a £5 million loyalty bonus (the Statement).
Central to the dispute is the authenticity and provenance of the Statement. While Mr Clancy produced a copy and asserted that the document was signed in 2018 and backdated to reflect earlier agreed terms, Dandara denies that the document was ever executed on its behalf and raises serious concerns about its creation, execution and subsequent handling. Crucially, despite repeated requests over a period exceeding a year, Mr Clancy failed to produce the original document, eventually asserting that he no longer had it and suggesting that it might be in Dandara’s possession.
Dandara applied under RCR 6/17(5) for production of the original Statement and, in default, for detailed affidavit evidence addressing its creation, chain of custody and dissemination. It also invoked RCR 6/15 to seek further information necessary to understand and prepare its case. The defendant resisted the application, contending that production of the original was unnecessary and that any further explanation should await witness statements after discovery.
The Court rejected that approach. It held that once a party pleads reliance on a document, RCR 6/17 is plainly engaged and production of the original must follow if it is within that party’s possession, custody or control. Even if the original could not be produced, the Court retained wide powers to require early discovery and sworn explanation of what had become of it, together with disclosure of copies and metadata. This was particularly so where the authenticity of the document lay at the heart of the case.
Distinguishing between matters of discovery and matters of evidence, the Court declined to compel answers to all of Dandara’s questions at this stage, but ordered targeted further information under RCR 6/15 where necessary to understand the defendant’s pleaded case and to prepare a response. Drawing on English authority under CPR Part 18, the Court emphasised that such orders are not confined to clarifying pleadings, but may be required to avoid unfairness and procedural imbalance where critical facts are exclusively within one party’s knowledge.
The Court ordered Mr Clancy to produce the original Statement if he had it, to give verified discovery of all copies (including metadata) and contemporaneous documents, to explain fully what had happened to the original, and to provide specified technical information concerning the device used to create the document. Limited further information about execution of the Statement was also ordered to be provided on affidavit. Directions were otherwise adjourned to allow proper amendment of the pleadings.
The judgment underlines that parties cannot rely on disputed documents while withholding originals or deferring explanation. Where authenticity is central, the Court will require early, structured transparency to prevent prolonged forensic manoeuvring. The decision is particularly instructive on the interaction between discovery and requests for further information, and on the Court’s willingness to intervene robustly to maintain equality of arms in high value, document driven disputes.