The court found that the Defendant erred by failing to respond to the Plaintiff's notice to produce, as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court held that most of the documents sought by the Plaintiff, such as annual returns, audited accounts, VAT returns, and muster rolls, were unnecessary for the fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs, as the dispute centered on whether goods were supplied and paid for, not on the Defendant's general financial or employment records. The court also found that cheques allegedly issued to the Plaintiff should be in the Plaintiff's possession, and that the Plaintiff's requests for certain documents were too general. Consequently, the application for production of documents was dismissed, but no order as to costs was made due to the Defendant's failure to respond to the notice to produce.