What specific financial documentation did Michael George Forbes seek to compel from Robert Kidd regarding the £20 million Scottish settlement?
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s attempt to verify the net proceeds of a £20 million settlement received by the Defendant in a Scottish legal action against Burness Paull LLP. Mr. Forbes, who claims an entitlement to a 20% success fee, challenged the Defendant’s reliance on a one-page summary document (RTP 1) that purported to show £12,436,000 in expenses, thereby drastically reducing the potential payout. The Claimant sought granular evidence to substantiate these figures, specifically targeting the Defendant’s failure to provide underlying financial records.
As noted in the court’s summary of the proceedings:
The issues arise from Mr Forbes’ Request to Produce documents under Rule 28.16 of the Rules of the DIFC Court (the “RDC”) of 11 November 2024, where Mr Forbes sought:
“All documents showing an accounting and breakdown of the £20 million settlement received by Defendant in the Scottish claim against Burness Paull LLP, to include the Defendant’s Client Account Ledger held with Levy & McRae”.
The Claimant argued that the summary provided by Mr. Kidd was "manifestly deficient" and lacked the necessary supporting documentation to verify the legitimacy of the claimed expenses, including professional fees and various loans.
Which judge presided over the CFI 081/2023 application and when was the order issued?
The application was heard by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order, which addressed the Claimant’s motion to compel further information, was formally issued on 24 March 2025.
What were the primary legal arguments advanced by Michael George Forbes and Robert Kidd regarding the disclosure of the Client Account Ledger?
Mr. Forbes argued that the Defendant’s initial response—a single-page summary—was insufficient to allow for a proper assessment of the settlement proceeds. He contended that the Defendant had a duty to provide the underlying documentation, including the Client Account Ledger from the law firm Levy & McRae, to justify the substantial expenses deducted from the £20 million total. The Claimant maintained that without this evidence, the calculation of his 20% success fee remained opaque and unverifiable.
Conversely, Mr. Kidd resisted the disclosure of specific financial details, particularly those involving fee recoveries from his former legal representatives. He relied on a defense of confidentiality, asserting that he was contractually or professionally barred from revealing the requested information. As the court noted:
In relation to the question whether there had been any recovery of legal fees from Levy & McRae and/or Jonathan Brown and for information relating to any such recovery, Mr Kidd’s answer was to say:
“the Defendant is not permitted to disclose this information as he is bound by certain confidentiality obligations”.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the intersection of confidentiality and disclosure obligations?
The Court was tasked with determining whether a party can successfully resist a request for further information or document production by invoking "confidentiality obligations" owed to third parties, such as former solicitors. The doctrinal question was whether such obligations constitute a valid legal bar to disclosure when the information is demonstrably material to the central dispute—in this case, the calculation of a success fee. The Court had to decide if the Defendant’s reliance on confidentiality was a legitimate shield or an attempt to obfuscate the financial reality of the settlement proceeds.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test of materiality to the Defendant’s claims of confidentiality?
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke rejected the Defendant’s attempt to use confidentiality as a blanket refusal to produce documents. The Court reasoned that the Defendant’s previous responses were "manifestly deficient" and that the Claimant was entitled to the requested information to test the veracity of the financial summary (RTP 1). The judge emphasized that the Court’s power to compel disclosure is not curtailed by private confidentiality agreements when the information is essential to the resolution of the proceedings.
The Court’s reasoning was clear:
It is plain to the Court that the orders sought by Mr Forbes are justified in the circumstances outlined above.
The judge further mandated that if the Defendant could not produce the documents directly, he was required to file a witness statement detailing his active efforts to obtain them from his former legal representatives, effectively shifting the burden onto the Defendant to demonstrate that he had exhausted all avenues of retrieval.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural frameworks were applied to the request for further information?
The Court relied on the Rules of the DIFC Court (RDC) to govern the production of information. Specifically, the Court referenced RDC 28.16 regarding the Request to Produce documents and RDC 19, which provides the Court with the authority to order a party to clarify matters in dispute. The Court noted that while RDC 28.36 (further disclosure) was an available route, the application under RDC 19 was procedurally sound given the Court's broad discretion to ensure parties provide sufficient information to clarify the issues in the case.
How did the Court utilize the cited precedents and the specific evidentiary record in reaching its decision?
The Court evaluated the evidence through the lens of the Claimant’s Request for Information (RFI), which spanned 22 pages. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke considered the witness statement of Mr. Hussain (dated 18 February 2025) in support of the application and the reply served by the Claimant’s counsel (dated 12 March 2025). By weighing these submissions against the Defendant’s "manifestly deficient" summary, the Court determined that the RFI was not only relevant but necessary for the fair disposal of the case. The Court effectively treated the RFI as a legitimate mechanism to pierce the veil of the Defendant’s summary financial accounting.
What was the final disposition of the application and what specific obligations were imposed on Robert Kidd?
The Court granted the Claimant’s application in full. Mr. Kidd was ordered to provide a comprehensive breakdown of £8,512,000 in professional fees and £1,979,000 in loans, including the identity of lenders and underlying loan agreements. Crucially, the Defendant was ordered to produce the Client Account Ledger from Levy & McRae. In the event of non-production, the Defendant must file a witness statement detailing his efforts to secure these documents from third parties. Regarding costs, the Court ordered:
The Claimant shall pay the Defendant the costs of this Application to be the subject of assessment if not agreed, but not to be assessed or paid until the conclusion of this action.
How does this ruling change the landscape for litigants asserting confidentiality as a defense to disclosure in the DIFC?
This decision serves as a stern warning that the DIFC Court will not tolerate the use of "confidentiality" as a convenient excuse to withhold material financial information. Practitioners must anticipate that if they rely on third-party confidentiality to resist disclosure, they will be required to prove that they have taken active, documented steps to obtain the information. The ruling reinforces the principle that the Court’s interest in the truth—and the materiality of evidence to the outcome of the dispute—will consistently override private confidentiality claims. Litigants should be prepared to provide full transparency regarding financial summaries or face court-mandated disclosure.
Where can I read the full judgment in Michael George Forbes v Robert Kidd [2025] DIFC CFI 081?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0812023-michael-george-forbes-v-robert-kidd-3
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Court (RDC) 19
- Rules of the DIFC Court (RDC) 28.16
- Rules of the DIFC Court (RDC) 28.36