Judgment: 2018-02-06 · Court archive

High Court rules 10 of 11 documents supplied by INM chairman are privileged

The court ordered that the privileged documents not be disclosed to the Director of Corporate Enforcement; an original letter from the Director was not privileged.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 51

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Director of Corporate Enforcement (Applicant)
  • Leslie Buckley (Respondent)
  • Derek Mizak
  • John Henry
What

The court ordered that the privileged documents not be disclosed to the Director of Corporate Enforcement; an original letter from the Director was not privileged.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court found that documents 1 and 3 to 11 attracted privilege. They included legal advice, draft responses and related email exchanges involving Buckley, his solicitor and Mizak. The judge found that Mizak had been consulted to provide input into draft material being prepared to answer the Director’s requirements, by reference to the solicitor’s advice.

The High Court ruled that 10 of 11 documents supplied by Independent News and Media plc (INM) chairman Leslie Buckley to the Director of Corporate Enforcement were legally privileged and could not be disclosed to the Director. The remaining document was an original letter from the Director and was not privileged.

The decision, delivered by President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly on 6 February 2018, followed an application under section 795(4) of the Companies Act 2014. The Director had received the 11 documents on 17 November 2017 as part of a statutory document production process. The court considered each document individually to determine whether it was privileged.

Buckley’s affidavits said the documents related to preparing responses to statutory requirements issued by the Director in August 2017, including a requirement concerning INM. He claimed litigation privilege and, alternatively, legal advice privilege. He said the material involved communications with his solicitor and input from IT expert Derek Mizak. Buckley also explained that he had forwarded an email from his solicitor to John Henry, who provided security services through Specialist Security Services.

The court found that documents 1 and 3 to 11 attracted privilege. They included legal advice, draft responses and related email exchanges involving Buckley, his solicitor and Mizak. The judge found that Mizak had been consulted to provide input into draft material being prepared to answer the Director’s requirements, by reference to the solicitor’s advice.

Document 2 was the original letter from the Director to Buckley, attached to a privileged email. The judge held that no privilege attached to that letter because it was already the Director’s own document.

The court’s determination addressed the privilege status and disclosure of the 11 documents. It did not decide the merits of the Director’s wider engagement with INM or make findings on the underlying cost reduction exercise. The judgment concluded that all documents except number 2 were privileged and not disclosable to the Director.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review