The High Court has ordered discovery of documents in three categories in a dispute over a contract to sell about 18 acres of development land in New Ross for €8,122,500. It deferred deciding whether to order discovery from Nolan Transport, a non-party, and adjourned that part of the motion with liberty to re-enter.
The four motions, brought by James O’Brien and Matthew Wall and Sons Limited, sought documents from different groups of defendants and Nolan Transport. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 9 April 2013, addressed categories one, four and five on the plaintiffs’ issue paper. Categories two and three were already covered by a consent order made by Mr Justice Murphy on 5 July 2012, and the plaintiffs did not press their application on those categories before Mr Justice Birmingham.
The underlying claim seeks specific performance of a written contract dated 22 December 2005. The plaintiffs say Joan Nolan signed as purchaser for herself and the first 12 defendants. The defendants say she signed in trust for N.T. Logistics Limited, the 14th defendant. The judgment identifies the intended purchasers as a major issue in the case; it does not decide that issue or the claim for specific performance.
The three categories ordered cover documents about funding the contract deposit, purchases by defendants or any of them and John Bradley of adjoining land at Butlersland, New Ross, and planning matters concerning proposed development on that land. The judge said the deposit, equal to 5% of the purchase price, appeared to have been paid by a cheque drawn on Nolan Transport (Oaklands) Limited, now Nolan Transport. He also noted that defendants one to thirteen and Bradley owned an adjoining strip, and that restrictions on its use were reflected in a €295,000 reduction to the agreed purchase price of the contracted land.
The judge found the requested documents were likely to help determine who the purchasers were, directly or by identifying further lines of inquiry. He ordered defendants one to fourteen to provide discovery for categories one, four and five. He did not make an order against Nolan Transport at this stage. He said discovery from the defendants might meet the plaintiffs’ needs, and left the plaintiffs free to re-enter that part of the motion.