The High Court has refused An Post’s application to strike out a claim by Hire Services Limited (E) and Hireservices (I), or alternatively to compel further discovery, in a dispute over the terms on which vans were supplied.
The plaintiff claims the vans were supplied under a five-year lease and seeks specific performance of the contract or damages for breach. An Post’s position is that the vans were hired as needed, week by week, and could be returned when no longer required. The judgment addresses discovery only; it does not decide which account of the arrangement is correct.
An Post sought further documents across several categories, including individual vehicle hire records, material about purchasing or financing 44 Citroen Berlingo/Peugeot Partner vans, communications between the parties and within the plaintiff’s business, and rental agreements numbered 10639 to 10673. It also sought templates and examples of longer-term vehicle leases. The plaintiff said it had no further documents in some categories, had supplied additional material in others, and considered the requested examples of other contracts irrelevant or unnecessary.
The court reviewed the parties’ discovery agreement, the plaintiff’s original and supplemental affidavits of discovery, and the arguments made on the motion. It applied the established test that further discovery requires more than an assertion that relevant documents must exist: the application must have a basis in the pleadings, discovery affidavits, disclosed documents or an admission pointing to undisclosed material.
Justice Creedon concluded that the plaintiff had complied with the discovery agreement and that An Post had not met that test. The court refused all reliefs sought in the motion, including striking out the claim, an order for further and better discovery, and the three further categories.
The ruling does not resolve the parties’ competing positions on the lease terms or determine the underlying contract claim.