The High Court has ordered limited discovery in Denis O’Brien’s damages claim against the Revenue Commissioners and two Revenue officers over disclosures to the media relating to his tax affairs. It refused his request for broader discovery about other possible disclosures, media requests and the officers’ employment records.
Mr Justice McDermott’s ruling concerns an application under Order 31, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. It does not determine whether the defendants wrongfully disclosed information or whether Mr O’Brien is entitled to damages.
The claim arises from the provision of a Case Stated and related material to journalists after a High Court hearing in April 2013. The Case Stated followed an appeal concerning capital gains tax and the question of whether a Dublin property was a permanent home available to Mr O’Brien for the 2000/2001 tax year. The appeal had succeeded before the Appeal Commissioner; the High Court later ruled in Mr O’Brien’s favour in the Case Stated proceedings.
Mr O’Brien alleges that the defendants disclosed confidential or taxpayer information, including by providing the Case Stated and submissions to journalists and commenting on the delay in agreeing the Case Stated. He claims, among other things, misfeasance of public office, breach of duty and breach of privacy. The defendants say the documents were opened in court, were public, and could properly be given to the media. They also rely on advice from senior counsel and deny wrongdoing.
The judge found that the pleadings identified a single disclosure episode in April 2013. A statement that Mr O’Brien was unaware of further disclosures did not plead that other disclosures had occurred. The court said the broader requests were speculative and would amount to a fishing or trawling exercise.
The order requires discovery in categories 1 to 5, within the narrower scope the defendants had agreed, with an extension for categories 1, 2 and 5 to cover disclosures to any third party. The documents concern communications, discussions, advice and applicable policies relating to disclosure of the Case Stated, submissions, preparation of the Case Stated and the statement about delay. Category 4 concerns correspondence between the parties arising from the earlier 2003 disclosure issue, for which the defendants had agreed discovery.
The court refused categories 6 and 7, which sought records of other media requests and steps to prevent unauthorised disclosures, and category 8, which sought employment records. It considered the admitted roles of the second and third defendants sufficient for the issue raised about their status as public officers. The underlying damages claim remains unresolved by this discovery ruling.