The High Court has refused David Cooney and Gillian Davitt’s application for further and better particulars from KBC Bank Ireland plc, in proceedings where KBC has admitted a breach of contract and offered compensation. The court did not decide whether that compensation was sufficient; it said that question would be determined at trial.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 30 June 2021. He applied established principles governing requests for particulars, which are intended to clarify the case a party must meet. The court said particulars should relate to matters raised in the pleadings and should not be used to obtain evidence, conduct interrogatories or secure documents through a process separate from discovery.
The plaintiffs sought, among other things, the contractual basis for KBC’s denials concerning duties of utmost good faith; when the tracker mortgage began; details and timing of remedial steps; communications with the Central Bank of Ireland; how KBC calculated its compensation offer; and the names and qualifications of experts it intended to call.
The judge treated the requests for details supporting the denials as requests to particularise denials, which the plaintiffs were not entitled to. He said questions about the start date of the tracker mortgage and the error underlying KBC’s remedial action amounted to attempts to interrogate issues. Requests about remedial steps and communications did not arise from the pleadings. Other questions concerned evidence for trial, sought documents that should be pursued through discovery, or asked KBC to explain how it arrived at its compensation offer. The court also said KBC was not obliged to identify its intended experts at that stage.
The court ordered none of the particulars sought. It noted that a notice for further particulars should have been issued before the application, giving the parties an opportunity to narrow the issues. As the judgment was delivered remotely, the judge said he was minded to award costs to KBC. Any party objecting was to notify the registrar or judicial assistant within 14 days, after which the court would schedule a brief costs hearing. The judgment records that the costs order was being considered; it does not state that the order was ultimately made.