The High Court has ordered John Archbold and Gerry Walsh to allow inspection of nine documents relied on in a defence affidavit in proceedings brought by Promontoria (Aran) Limited.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 5 March 2019. The application was made under Order 31, rule 18 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Promontoria sought documents referred to in an affidavit sworn for the defendants but not exhibited to it.
The court said an inspection order requires actual knowledge that the documents exist; supposition or inference is insufficient. Applying that standard, it identified nine requested documents whose existence was expressly averred to or whose written elements were identified in the affidavit: data access documents; a loan settlement proposal; sworn Statements of Affairs; a title report; a Deed of Assurance; two letters dated 14 October 2014 concerning a €2 million settlement or settlement proposal; a letter dated 22 October 2014 concerning settlement of funds within four weeks; and correspondence from mid-November 2014.
The court also considered whether inspection was necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings under Order 31, rule 18(2). It concluded that inspection of those nine documents was necessary and granted the order in respect of them.
The ruling did not extend to six other categories sought. The affidavit said a report on issues affecting title would be sought, but that did not establish it had been sought. There was no indication that a written report or recommendations existed for the valuation, that summaries or minutes existed for two meetings, that the proposed settlement terms were in writing, or that minutes existed for a telephone conference. The judgment therefore did not order inspection of those materials.