The High Court has ordered limited disclosure of Heineken Ireland's dealings with Musgrave Group Cork in a commercial dispute over the terms on which beer products were supplied under a 1996 joint venture agreement.
Hartside Limited alleges that Heineken Ireland breached the agreement by supplying packaged products to other wholesalers on more favourable terms than those available to Nash Beverages Limited, the joint venture company.
The discovery dispute centred on Musgrave. Hartside sought documents concerning the terms on which Heineken sold products including 33cl bottled beer to Musgrave and several other businesses. Heineken agreed to provide information concerning a number of named wholesalers but resisted disclosure relating to Musgrave.
Heineken argued that Musgrave was not a wholesaler within the meaning of the agreement, that its sales volumes were not comparable with those of the joint venture company and that the agreement was aimed at the licensed trade rather than businesses supplying supermarkets and general retail stores.
Mr Justice Clarke held that Hartside had established more than a bare assertion. Evidence before the court provided a credible basis for arguing that Musgrave might fall within the relevant contractual definition and might have received more favourable terms. Those questions remained disputed and were for the trial judge to decide.
A separate difficulty was confidentiality. The court accepted that pricing and supply terms involving Musgrave were commercially sensitive and also affected a third party which was not involved in the proceedings.
The judge therefore adopted a staged approach. He ordered immediate discovery of documents showing the volume of relevant Heineken sales to Musgrave, broken down by individual product. That information could help determine whether Musgrave bought comparable volumes and therefore fell within the contractual clause.
He also directed Heineken to prepare an affidavit identifying documents concerning prices and other material supply terms. Those documents were to be collected and preserved but not immediately disclosed. They would instead be available at trial if the trial judge decided they had become relevant.
The ruling determines the scope and timing of discovery only. It does not decide whether Heineken breached the joint venture agreement.