SCCSI
(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)
Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes
Presented by
Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International
sccsinternational.org
Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited
[2026] EWHC 1238 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Before Mrs Justice Jefford | Heard 12 May 2026 | Handed down 12 May 2026
Interactive Process Flow | Disclosure, security for costs and costs of a composite application
Case Analysis Process Flow
0 of 7 nodes explored
1. Case Overview
+
Case: Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited [2026] EWHC 1238 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Judge: Mrs Justice Jefford
Hearing Date: 12 May 2026
Judgment Date: 12 May 2026
Case No: HT-2022-000022

Accor applied for additional security for costs, independent review of documents withheld for privilege, production of trust instruments, disclosure of about 48,000 to 50,000 withheld family documents and directions concerning redactions to a cooperation agreement. Most matters were resolved or substantially successful, but the broad family-document request was refused as unsupported and disproportionate (paragraphs 1-14).

Central Legal Test: Disclosure had to be relevant, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective. An earlier solicitor-to-solicitor methodology did not bind the court or justify production of every attachment. Costs followed practical success on the composite application, adjusted for exaggeration and the unsuccessful family-document issue (paragraphs 1-14).
Family Documents
+
Accor challenged placeholders marking related attachments as irrelevant, relying on earlier agreed production methodology and concern about Lloyds' privilege review (paragraphs 1-3).
Composite Application
+
The application also covered additional security, privilege review, trust instruments and cooperation-agreement redactions (paragraphs 5-6).
2. Procedural History
+
Security Agreed
+
After competing demands and offers, Lloyds' offer of £2.3 million additional security was accepted shortly before the hearing (paragraphs 7-12).
Costs Assessed
+
The court determined who had succeeded and summarily assessed the application costs, including reductions for correspondence and staffing (paragraphs 12-18).
3. Defendant's Position
+

Accor said the privilege failures undermined confidence in Lloyds' relevance review and sought all withheld family documents, while also relying on its success across the other application issues.

Disclosure Concern
+
Accor relied on missing family members and the risk that related attachments had been wrongly excluded (paragraphs 1-3).
Costs Position
+
It said it had obtained the additional security, independent privilege review, trust documents and redaction directions, and was the successful party (paragraph 6).
4. Claimant's Position
+

Lloyds said there was no evidence that its relevance review was wrong, production of tens of thousands of documents was disproportionate, the security demand was exaggerated and it had succeeded on family documents.

Proportionality
+
Lloyds accepted privilege mistakes but distinguished them from the separate assessment of relevance and resisted wholesale production (paragraphs 3-4).
Security Negotiation
+
It relied on the movement from much larger demands to acceptance of £2.3 million and said that should affect success and costs (paragraphs 7-12).
5. Court's Analysis
+
No Wholesale Family Disclosure
+
An agreed production process between former solicitors did not bind the court. Without clear evidence that relevance decisions were wrong, ordering 48,000 to 50,000 further documents was disproportionate (paragraphs 1-4).
Accor Was Overall Winner
+
Accor obtained substantial additional security and relief on privilege, trust and redaction matters. Its failure on family documents and exaggerated security demand justified a percentage reduction, not reversal of success (paragraphs 5-14).
Costs Reduced
+
Lloyds was ordered to pay 75% of the assessed costs. Further reductions reflected excessive correspondence and the mix of senior and junior work described at the hearing (paragraphs 14-18).
6. Decision and Outcome
+
Winner: The Defendant and Applicant (Accor Hotel Services UK Limited) succeeded.

Result: The broad family-document request was refused, but Accor was treated as successful overall. Lloyds had to pay 75% of the summarily assessed application costs, subject to the judge's item reductions (paragraphs 4 and 12-18). The Claimant and Respondent (Lloyds Developments Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: There was no mass production of irrelevant family attachments. The agreed £2.3 million additional security and the other review and disclosure directions remained effective.
Family Documents Refused
+
Wholesale production of 48,000 to 50,000 documents was not ordered (paragraph 4).
Security
+
Additional security was resolved at £2.3 million (paragraphs 8-12).
Costs
+
Lloyds was ordered to pay 75% of the assessed costs, with stated item reductions (paragraphs 14-18).
7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points
+
Agreed Methodology
+
A solicitor-to-solicitor disclosure methodology does not displace the court's control of relevance, proportionality and the overriding objective.
Family Documents
+
A relevant parent document does not make every attachment relevant; a mass-production order needs evidence beyond speculation.
Costs Success
+
On a composite application, the court identifies practical overall success and can reflect partial failure or exaggerated demands through percentage and assessment reductions.
Practice Implications
+
For Claimants:
Record relevance decisions and explain family-document exclusions. If privilege review has failed, address that defect without assuming every relevance decision must be repeated.
For Defendants:
For family-document disclosure, use concrete examples showing relevance from surrounding material. Avoid a request for every related document without evidential support.
General Practice Points:
Narrow composite applications before the hearing and exchange realistic figures early. Last-minute concessions can still drive an adverse costs order.
Legal Disclaimer
This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes.
sccsinternational.org