The plaintiffs moved under rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order requiring unfettered access to financial and corporate records relevant to an accounting dispute arising from a failed cross‑border business venture.
The court found the defendants had not complied with the disclosure order and rejected their explanation that the plaintiffs had stolen the records.
The evidence demonstrated deliberate and ongoing non-compliance with multiple court orders and inadequate attempts to obtain documents within the defendants’ control.
Despite serious misconduct, the court declined to strike the defence immediately, emphasizing the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.
The defendants were instead ordered to conduct further searches and obtain records from all possible sources under strict timelines, failing which the plaintiffs could renew the motion to strike without notice.
