The High Court has ordered Molex Ireland Limited and Molex Incorporated to make further and better discovery within 12 weeks in a personal injuries action brought by Patrick McNally. The court found the defendants’ earlier searches fell short of a 2019 Court of Appeal order, but did not strike out their defence because it considered a fair trial remained possible.
McNally’s 2015 claim alleges that he worked as a mechanical engineer at the defendants’ Shannon plant from 1983 to 1990 and was exposed to trichloroethylene (TCE) while cleaning tools. He claims the exposure caused Parkinson’s disease. The defendants deny liability and plead that the claim is statute-barred. Those allegations remain to be determined.
The Court of Appeal had ordered discovery of documents relating to claims of neurodegenerative disorders or injuries linked to TCE, Gizer or Gun Kat at the defendants’ production or workplace facilities in Ireland and North America. In March 2020, the defendants’ discovery affidavit stated there were no documents in that category. They maintained that the searches and interviews they had carried out were adequate.
On McNally’s motion to strike out the defence for non-compliance, Mr Justice Mark Heslin found that the searches did not match the order’s geographic and temporal scope. The evidence showed searches focused largely on electronic records from 2008 onwards, with gaps concerning physical searches at facilities, Irish procurement records, TCE purchases and potential third-party sources. The judge also found that information about the searches had been supplied in an unsworn “search sheet”, leaving the plaintiff unable to test it through cross-examination.
The judge considered documents that appeared to indicate TCE use, including a 2009 solvent management plan for a Molex facility in Arkansas and an EPA report recording TCE in effluent from the Shannon plant in January 2019. He also noted that the defendants had previously identified Gizer as a cleaning agent used at the Shannon plant, although no related purchase records had been discovered. These materials informed the court’s assessment of the searches; they did not determine whether TCE exposure caused McNally’s condition or establish liability in the underlying case.
Mr Justice Heslin found the discovery failure negligent, but said the evidence did not safely establish deliberate evasion or mala fides. He concluded further discovery could remedy the problem and preserve the possibility of a fair trial. The court rejected the plaintiff’s alternative request to have the case proceed on an assessment-only basis. It awarded the plaintiff the costs of the motion and directed the parties to submit an agreed draft order to the Registrar within 14 days, with short written submissions due within that period if they disagreed on its terms.