Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor HotelServices UK Limited and Others [2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC)

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 (in administration) v Accor HotelServices UK Limited and Others

[2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court

Before Mr Justice Constable | Heard 12 June 2026 | Handed down 19 June 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Third-party disclosure of directors' mobile messages

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor HotelServices UK Limited and Others [2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Justice Constable
Hearing Date: 12 June 2026
Judgment Date: 19 June 2026
Case No: HT-2022-000022 and HT-2026-000079

Lloyds applied for its former directors to deliver mobile devices to an independent reviewer for disclosure of specified instant messages. It proceeded under CPR 31.17 in the main deceit action against Accor and through consolidated Part 8 proceedings asserting contractual and common-law rights. The applications followed years of non-compliance with mobile-device disclosure orders (paragraphs 1-14).

Central Legal Test: Under CPR 31.17, the requested documents had to be likely to support the applicant's case or adversely affect another party's case and disclosure had to be necessary for fair disposal or saving costs. The court also considered its power to require production of devices subject to privacy safeguards and Lloyds' separate rights against the directors (paragraphs 54-63).

Underlying Claim

Lloyds claims more than £180 million in deceit, alleging that Accor-driven hotel redesign caused delay, funding failure and project loss. Accor denies fraud and attributes failure to underfunding and misuse of funds (paragraphs 4-8).

Missing Mobile Data

Lloyds' 2022 disclosure document identified directors' WhatsApp, iMessage and SMS data as relevant and available, but the ordered disclosure was not completed (paragraphs 9-14).

Independent Review

The proposed process required devices and passwords to be supplied to an independent reviewer, with controls protecting privacy and privilege.

2. Procedural History

Repeated Orders

The court had made numerous earlier orders concerning the devices and reviewer. The present order would be at least the 56th in the litigation (paragraphs 2 and 9-14).

Parallel Routes

A prior order led Lloyds to bring both the CPR 31.17 application and Part 8 proceedings based on rights against its former directors (paragraphs 1 and 62).

3. Defendant's Position

The directors argued that CPR 31.17 was not satisfied because Lloyds sought material Accor believed adverse to Lloyds, that relevant messages could not be expected to exist, and that the rule did not permit delivery of phones (paragraphs 55-60).

Statutory Condition

They said an applicant could not seek documents expected to undermine its own case on behalf of its opponent.

Device Production

They said a separate search or imaging jurisdiction was required and challenged the evidential basis for expecting relevant messages.

4. Claimant's Position

Lloyds said relevant messages were within the directors' control, the earlier orders and corporate duties required cooperation, and independent review was necessary to complete its disclosure obligations.

Relevant Class

The request was confined to specified instant messages and dates linked to issues in the main proceedings.

Separate Rights

Lloyds relied on contractual and common-law rights in addition to CPR 31.17, requiring the parallel Part 8 process (paragraph 62).

5. Court's Analysis

CPR 31.17 Satisfied

On the directors' own case, any relevant phone material would support Lloyds. Accor's contrary expectation did not defeat the express condition (paragraphs 55-57).

Documents Could Exist

The evidence did not justify the directors' assertion that relevant messages could not reasonably be expected to exist (paragraph 58).

Power to Require Devices

Section 34(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was broad enough to require production of documents on conditions including delivery of devices and passwords, with privacy protections (paragraphs 59-60).

Both Procedural Routes Proper

The CPR application would have succeeded alone, but Accor was justified in requiring Lloyds also to pursue its contractual and common-law rights through originating proceedings (paragraphs 61-63).

Costs and Cooperation

The directors caused the applications, but Lloyds and Accor duplicated work through poor cooperation. Recovery was limited to 80% (paragraphs 64-73).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Claimant and Interested Party (Lloyds Developments Limited and Accor HotelServices UK Limited) succeeded.

Result: The disclosure and Part 8 claims succeeded. The directors had to pay 80% of Lloyds' costs assessed at £82,472.50 and 80% of Accor's costs assessed at £52,150. Lloyds was secondarily jointly liable for Accor's costs if the directors failed to pay within 21 days, with recourse against them (paragraphs 61-74). The Third-party Respondents (Rishipal Singh and Richard Diamond) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The directors had to provide the devices for controlled independent review so that Lloyds' instant-message disclosure could be completed before trial.

Disclosure Ordered

The CPR 31.17 and Part 8 routes succeeded (paragraphs 61-62 and 68).

Directors' Costs

The directors bore the primary 80% costs liability (paragraphs 68-72).

Lloyds' Secondary Liability

Lloyds would answer Accor's costs only on non-payment by the directors and could recover that payment from them (paragraphs 66 and 73).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Third-party Disclosure

The rule can apply where the material is likely to support the applicant on its own case, even if an opposing party expects the material to be adverse.

Devices as Production Mechanism

The court may condition document production on delivery of the device and credentials needed to extract them, with safeguards.

Parallel Causes

Where a company asserts direct rights against a former officer, separate originating proceedings may properly accompany a disclosure application.

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Identify custodians and mobile data accurately in the disclosure review document, preserve devices early and use a written independent-review protocol for privacy and privilege.

For Defendants:
Evidence any claim that data no longer exists and propose proportionate safeguards. A bare objection to device delivery will not answer a targeted document class.

General Practice Points:
Cooperate on reviewer scope and written submissions. Duplication between aligned parties can reduce costs recovery even where the application succeeds.

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.