The High Court has ordered limited discovery in a dispute over whether defendants were entitled to extract limestone from Clonmelsh Quarry under a 1985 lease. Mr Justice Brian McGovern gave judgment on 17 January 2018, resolving two motions for discovery after some categories had been agreed.
The plaintiff, Philip Morrissey, brought one motion against the first, second and third defendants and sought documents from the fourth defendant. The first three defendants brought a separate motion seeking documents from the plaintiff. The judgment concerns disclosure of documents; it does not decide whether the quarry extraction was lawful.
The court recorded that blasting, excavation, crushing and grading had been carried out at the quarry since August 2014 under agreements that were to be disclosed. The central issue in the proceedings was whether the defendants, or any of them, were entitled to extract limestone under the 1985 lease. The defendants submitted that some requested categories were irrelevant because the plaintiff’s claim rested on his status as registered owner of the quarry and he had no interest in the first defendant’s property. The judge accepted that submission and refused discovery of categories 2 and 3 sought from the first three defendants.
The first three defendants had offered to disclose their agreement with the fourth defendant, as supplemented, varied or replaced, and the plaintiff accepted that offer. The judge also ordered disclosure of a statement of account recording payments by the fourth defendant under that agreement.
For the fourth defendant, categories 1 and 5 were agreed. The judge refused categories 2 and 3 as irrelevant or unnecessary. He ordered disclosure of invoices and receipts showing the sale or disposal of limestone from the quarry between August 2014 and 14 March 2017; financial statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016 and management accounts for January to March 2017; a statement of payments made to the first three defendants under the licence agreement from 1 August 2014 to 31 March 2017; and stock records showing limestone stockpiled at the quarry from August 2014 to March 2017.
On the defendants’ motion against the plaintiff, categories 1 to 4 had been agreed. The judge refused category 5, which sought documents supporting the plaintiff’s alleged loss and damage. He said those documents were more appropriately sought through a request for particulars of the alleged loss and damage, including supporting vouchers.