CB&I UK Ltd, Re

CB&I UK Ltd, Re

The application for further disclosure or an order to create documents was refused because the Plan Company had already provided all documents given to its expert, there was no significant information imbalance, and the materiality of the requested information to the sanction hearing was not established. The application to extend the sanction hearing timetable was granted because the court found that, in the interests of procedural fairness and given the complexity and volume of evidence, the existing timetable was insufficient.

Parties
Respondent: CB&I UK Ltd; First Applicant: LC Ad Hoc Group (LC AHG); Second Applicant: Reficar (Refineria de Cartagena SA); Opposing Creditor: The Wood Parties
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Insolvency/restructuring Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Sanction Hearing
Outcome
First application (disclosure/CPR 35.9) refused; second application (extension of timetable) granted
Legal Topics
Restructuring Plan, Disclosure, Case Management, Procedural Fairness, Sanction Hearing Timetable
Insolvency Law Company Law Civil Procedure Restructuring Plan Disclosure Case Management Procedural Fairness Sanction Hearing Timetable

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CB&I UK Ltd

Respondent

LC Ad Hoc Group (LC AHG)

First Applicant

Reficar (Refineria de Cartagena SA)

Second Applicant

The Wood Parties

Opposing Creditor

Procedural Posture

Insolvency/restructuring Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plan Company should be ordered to provide further disclosure or create documents containing information requested by the LC AHG under CPR 31.12 or CPR 35.9
  2. 2 Whether the timetable for the sanction hearing should be extended as sought by Reficar

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further disclosure or an order to create documents was refused because the Plan Company had already provided all documents given to its expert, there was no significant information imbalance, and the materiality of the requested information to the sanction hearing was not established. The application to extend the sanction hearing timetable was granted because the court found that, in the interests of procedural fairness and given the complexity and volume of evidence, the existing timetable was insufficient.

Court Disposition

First application (disclosure/CPR 35.9) refused; second application (extension of timetable) granted

Orders

  • No order for further disclosure or creation of documents under CPR 31.12 or 35.9
  • Sanction hearing timetable extended to two days pre-reading and six days hearing, to be listed in early February 2024