Disclosure mistakes office holders can’t afford to make

Office holders bringing proceedings before the court are subject to the same disclosure obligations as any other litigant. Forget that, and the consequences can be fatal.

In Factor (as liquidator of Sweetland Ltd (in liquidation)) v Haddad and others [2026], the liquidator’s entire application was struck out because his disclosure fell short of the rules.

This case is a useful reminder that disclosure must be approached seriously and methodically, and in full compliance with the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 2016 and Civil Procedure Rules, from day one.

The disclosure framework

Practice Direction 57AD of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the familiar framework for disclosure. Parties must disclose documents in accordance with the model of disclosure ordered. In short, they must disclose documents that:

• They rely on
• Adversely affect their case
• Adversely affect another party’s case
• Support another party’s case
• They are required to disclose under any relevant practice direction.

Disclosure isn’t about cherry-picking helpful material. It’s an obligation to put the facts honestly before the court and the other side.

That obligation falls particularly heavily on office holders who, like solicitors, are officers of the court. An office holder bringing claims on behalf of a company, often to recover assets for creditors, will usually inherit custody or control of the company’s books and records.

In some cases, the volume can be enormous, so the search and review exercise must be careful, proportionate and properly documented.

Factor v Haddad [2026]

The case of Factor v Haddad shows what can happen when a liquidator’s disclosure falls short. The liquidator of Sweetland Ltd brought claims against the seven respondents over a series of payments made from the company’s account. In January 2025, the court ordered all parties to carry out a proper, search-based disclosure exercise.

At the time, several of the respondents were representing themselves. The second respondent disclosed 4,364 documents, while the fourth to seventh respondents disclosed a further 155 between them. By contrast, the liquidator disclosed just 56 documents, despite having control of 49 boxes of hard copy files, as well as access to the company’s email server and computer systems.

The respondents challenged the liquidator’s disclosure. They identified documents that were clearly within the liquidator’s control but had not been produced and raised concerns about how the searches had been carried out. Some of the missing documents would have supported the respondents’ case, while others undermined the liquidator’s position. The liquidator also failed to confirm that he had disclosed all known adverse documents.

A seven-day trial was due to start on 20 January 2026. It was adjourned on the first day to give the liquidator chance to put things right, despite objections from the respondents. The liquidator filed a witness statement explaining his disclosure process; however, it was severely limited in its usefulness. It lacked meaningful detail about what steps had been taken, what searches had been run or the methodology he had followed.

When the parties returned to court on 17 February 2026, the judge struck out the liquidator’s application entirely. He found that the liquidator had breached his disclosure obligations, set out in the January 2025 order, and that the witness statement didn’t remedy those failures.

The judge found that the omissions were not minor or technical issues. The shortcomings were serious enough to undermine the purpose of the disclosure process and prevented the respondents from properly understanding or challenging how disclosure had been handled.

Practical implications

The case is a clear reminder that the court will not indulge a casual approach to disclosure. Being an office holder is no shield against the obligation of full and frank disclosure.

Office holders must take proper steps to review and record all documents in their possession or control, so that when proceedings are issued, their disclosure can’t be challenged.