The High Court has refused an application by the Car Defendants for discovery to be phased in litigation involving Douglas Shopping Centre and several shoe, butcher and jewellery businesses. It ordered costs against the applicants for the application, but stayed payment until the proceedings are finalised.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the ex tempore judgment on 25 March 2022 in the Commercial list. The application arose at a For Mention hearing to finalise discovery orders following an earlier decision, Avoncore Ltd T/A Douglas Shopping Centre & Anor v Leeson Motors Ltd & Ors [2022] IEHC 34.
The parties generally agreed that discovery should take place over nine months. The Car Defendants sought to have certain categories of documents, which they said were readily identifiable and retrievable, produced within three months. They argued this would help progress the litigation during the nine-month period.
The judge accepted that some categories could be discovered sooner. However, he said the usual approach was a reciprocal and uniform exchange at one time, and that departing from it required compelling reasons. The wish to advance the case more quickly was not compelling, he said, as one party may often seek a faster timetable than another.
The judgment also identified potential additional costs from analysing documents in separate phases, and the risk that challenges over privilege or sufficiency could be dealt with separately, losing opportunities to resolve discovery issues together. Separate challenges could also lead to duplication and use more court time, including if different judges heard them. The judge said court-resource pressure was an important factor in refusing the application.
On costs, the Car Defendants submitted that their application was well-intentioned and made at a For Mention listing to move the case forward. The other parties opposed it, and the hearing took over an hour—about a quarter of a court’s daily hearing time. The court awarded costs against the Car Defendants for the time taken by the application, while noting there was no criticism of them and their good intentions were not disputed. At their request, and without objection from the other parties, the costs order was stayed until the proceedings are finalised.
The judgment addresses the discovery timetable and costs of this application. It does not set out the final outcome of the underlying proceedings.