The High Court has ordered targeted discovery in a dispute over payments claimed under a settlement and purchase deed, while refusing several broader requests for documents. The judgment addresses discovery only; it does not decide whether either alleged forfeiture event occurred or whether the disputed sums are payable.
Mustardside Limited, Lcosars Limited, Home Generations Homes Limited and Greg Kavanagh claim that about €10.1 million remains due under a deed made on 3 February 2017. They say a €3 million second instalment due on 3 August 2017 was not paid, and that later instalments also remain outstanding. The defendants rely on alleged forfeiture events relating to Annefield in Dundrum and a property at Castleforbes, and counterclaim for the return of €9.88 million already paid. Those are opposing claims, not findings made in this judgment.
Justice David Barniville considered the plaintiffs’ application for discovery of three groups of documents. Applying the requirements of relevance and necessity, he rejected requests he considered too broad or insufficiently justified.
For Annefield, the judge ordered discovery of the 2014 “Grant of Easements” agreement between Kavcre Investments Limited and Orla McDonnell, and documents showing whether the defendants, their servants or agents knew of that agreement when the deed was signed on 3 February 2017. He refused the request for wider property records and documents about how the defendants later became aware of the agreement.
For Castleforbes, the defendants must disclose documents in their possession, power or procurement concerning Mr Kavanagh’s alleged involvement with or interest in the property. The judge said the defendants’ offer to disclose only documents they intended to rely on at a hearing did not go far enough. He refused discovery of the remaining material sought in that category and made no ruling on whether the defendants could redact the identity of the source of their knowledge.
The judge also ordered discovery of the Mustardside–Tracre and Lcosars–Crekav Holdco loan agreements, documents evidencing the defendants’ contention that they had funds to pay the second instalment on 3 August 2017, including bank statements, and certain statutory declarations of solvency. He refused broader requests about the defendants’ finances over other dates and supporting material concerning the declarations. He expressed no view on proposed redactions to bank statements.
The court directed that counsel be heard on issues arising from the judgment and intended order, including costs. The payment claims, the counterclaim and the alleged forfeiture events remain unresolved in this ruling.