The High Court has adjourned Andrew Griffith’s application for discovery of most of the documents he sought from Parma companies, pending his identification of relevant material he had previously held. It also ordered discovery on a limited category sought by the defendants and counterclaimants, while refusing or deferring other parts of their application.
The ruling by Ms Justice Murphy, delivered on 6 April 2020, concerned discovery motions in proceedings over Griffith’s claim to a 7.5% shareholding connected with the former Bank of Ireland headquarters on Baggot Street, Dublin. The defendants deny that he is entitled to shares, arguing the property was bought by Remley, which they say was outside the relevant group. Their counterclaim alleges breaches of Griffith’s employment agreement. The judgment did not decide those underlying claims.
Griffith sought discovery in ten categories that remained contested. The judge considered some categories potentially relevant to his claim, including documents about the acquisition and ownership of Remley and the identities of companies holding sites covered by the share option agreements. But she said the court could not decide whether that discovery was necessary, or how broad it should be, until Griffith identified relevant documents among more than 100,000 company documents he had held for at least two years. He had been invited to specify those documents but did not do so. The judge adjourned his application on that basis.
The judge made clear that this decision did not determine whether Griffith was entitled to retain the documents; that issue remained for trial of the counterclaim. Separately, she said he had a contractual entitlement to the company’s audited annual accounts and financial information under the option agreement. The judgment noted that only accounts for one financial year had been provided in response to earlier requests.
On the defendants’ application, the judge refused discovery of documents about Griffith’s alleged disclosure of company material to third parties, finding the request speculative and unsupported by a factual basis. She also declined, at that stage, to order discovery of his financial resources to fund a possible share subscription, because the cost depended on the purchase’s financing and capital structure, which had not been disclosed.
The judge ordered Griffith to make discovery of documents relating to his work for himself or other businesses during his employment, limited in the first instance to information he was contractually required to provide in annual updates of his business interests and financial exposure. She also said he must either clarify whether he was advancing a defence based on alleged serious misconduct or tax-law failures, and provide particulars and discovery if so, or face a possible application to strike out that plea. The court retained case management of the proceedings.