The High Court has ordered limited discovery in Garrett Kelleher’s case against National Asset Loan Management Limited, rejecting four broader categories of documents sought by Mr Kelleher.
Mr Kelleher alleges that confidential information about him was disclosed to third parties. His amended claim identifies three newspaper articles, published between 2012 and 2016, and information concerning his involvement in the Chicago Spire project. He seeks damages for alleged misfeasance in public office, breach of confidence, negligence and breaches of duty, among other claims. These remain allegations; the judgment concerned discovery, not the underlying claims.
The defendant’s amended defence said an audit review found that NALM employee Enda Farrell had supplied confidential information to third parties between October 2011 and February 2012. The judgment also records that Mr Farrell pleaded guilty in April 2016 to unlawfully disclosing information in breach of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009. In a November 2016 letter to Mr Kelleher, the defendant identified disclosures concerning Shelbourne on three dates between September 2010 and July 2012, and named three recipient entities. The defendant continued to deny primary or vicarious liability for Mr Farrell’s actions.
Mr Kelleher sought five categories of discovery, including records of disclosures, third-party communications and investigations. The defendant offered two narrower categories: documents evidencing disclosure of information appearing in the three pleaded newspaper articles, for the period 1 January 2012 to 16 February 2015; and documents evidencing Mr Farrell’s disclosure of information relating to Mr Kelleher, for the period 21 September 2010 to 4 July 2012.
Justice Pilkington found Mr Kelleher’s first category too broad because it would require the defendant to gather and scrutinise extensive records to decide what fell within the request. She described the requests for information sent to third parties with a legitimate reason to receive it, and for records of investigations and third-party requests, as too broad or insufficiently specific. The court also found the proposed categories disproportionate and said discovery should be focused on what was necessary for the litigation.
The judge considered whether a modified threshold for discovery could apply where a claimant says relevant information is held by the opposing party. She concluded that the material before the court did not provide sufficient additional information to justify broader discovery. The court therefore directed discovery in the two categories the defendant had offered in its letter of 23 March 2018. Justice Pilkington said she would hear the parties on any further orders required. The judgment does not determine whether the alleged disclosures made the defendant liable.