The Supreme Court has rejected a proposal by Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd for an additional stage of document inspection in its dispute with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The ruling settles outstanding details of a discovery order following an earlier judgment on the appeal; it does not decide the underlying action.
The company had proposed a “Protocol of Inspection” under which the High Court could direct further discovery before trial. The plan included a process for reviewing proposed redactions of confidential or commercially sensitive material and allowing nominated lawyers to inspect unredacted documents in some circumstances.
Chief Justice Frank Clarke said such arrangements could be appropriate in some cases, but he was not persuaded that there was sufficient reason to depart from the approach set out in the principal judgment. Under that approach, some discovery would be ordered at this stage, some refused, and questions about further disclosure left to the trial judge, who would have a fuller understanding of the issues.
The Court accepted the Minister’s narrower approach to discovery in categories 4 to 8 for now. It also directed that the relevant documents be available in unredacted form in court, so the trial judge can consider whether more should be disclosed. Word Perfect may ask the trial judge to revisit the scope of discovery and redactions.
The judgment permits redaction of highly confidential material, subject to the trial judge’s power to require disclosure if it would contribute to a just resolution and would not disproportionately infringe confidentiality, having regard to the material’s importance to the issues at trial. The Court did not give the Minister advance approval to redact parts of documents solely on relevance grounds. It said the Minister must make that decision conscientiously and that any discovery affidavit must explain the basis for redactions.
On costs, the Court ordered that each side bear its own costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Word Perfect was awarded its costs of the Supreme Court appeal. The judgment said the parties should now be able to agree the final form of the order, reflecting both this ruling and the principal judgment.