The High Court varied a discovery order in a personal injury claim brought by Eamon Jones against Grove Turkeys Limited, allowing access to specified training and complaint records concerning Jones while rejecting other categories of documents.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2011, Mr Justice Hogan considered the defendant’s appeal from an order made by the Master of the High Court on 1 July 2010. The claim concerns alleged repetitive strain injuries to Jones’s fingers, hand, wrist, arms and shoulder, said to have resulted from repeatedly pulling turkey claws while working at the company’s factory between 1997 and 2000. These remain allegations; the court was deciding the scope of discovery, not the claim’s merits.
The judge said the defendant’s counsel had confirmed that the company would not argue that the alleged injuries were unforeseeable or that they were not the kind of injuries a prudent employer should guard against. The remaining negligence issue, if Jones proves the injuries occurred as alleged, was whether the company breached its duty of care. The judge said that clarification made documents about other employees’ complaints and incidents irrelevant to the discovery application.
The court allowed discovery of training or instruction documents supplied to Jones about work on the “crawline” during his employment, from August 1997 to October 2000. It also allowed records of complaints and incidents concerning Jones himself. For a fourth category, covering records such as accident and medical reports, correspondence and court documents, discovery was permitted only insofar as the material related to Jones personally. The judgment noted that some documents in that category might be privileged.
The judge refused discovery of risk assessments and safety statements, as well as documents about the company’s awareness of injury risks, because he considered them relevant only to foreseeability, which the defendant had agreed not to contest. He also rejected a broad request for records about workers’ identities, hours, productivity and equipment, finding the relevance doubtful and the request unnecessary and potentially oppressive. Requests concerning other employees’ complaints and incidents were disallowed.
The judgment did not decide liability or damages. Justice Hogan also noted that the case had remained outstanding for more than ten years after Jones left the employment. Without deciding who was responsible for past delay, he proposed listing the case for mention on 7 June 2011, with a view to bringing it to trial promptly. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the Master’s discovery order was varied as described.