The High Court has rejected John Magnier’s application to withhold ten emails with retired solicitor Eugene McCague from the defendants in a dispute over an alleged agreement to buy the Barne Estate in Co Tipperary. The court ruled that any legal advice McCague may have given without a practising certificate would not be privileged and that the emails must be disclosed.
In a judgment delivered on 5 November 2024, Mr Justice Twomey said Magnier had not provided sufficient evidence that the emails contained legal advice or that he believed McCague held a practising certificate. Magnier did not ask the court to inspect the ten emails and did not swear direct evidence of his belief. The court said the claims were unsubstantiated; it made no finding that McCague had committed an offence or breached the Solicitors Acts.
The judge also considered Magnier’s reliance on an 1854 English case concerning a practising solicitor who had failed to renew a certificate. He held that it did not apply to McCague, who had retired from practice. The court said legal advice privilege requires a professional legal relationship and concluded that the claimed advice, if given, was not provided legitimately by a person holding a practising certificate.
The judgment addressed other discovery disputes in the underlying case. It refused the defendants’ request to exclude documents held by two named custodians, Maurice Regan and Pat Burke, from discovery, saying relevant documents within the defendants’ possession or procurement must be disclosed. It also refused an order for further and better discovery from the plaintiffs, finding the evidence did not show that relevant documents had been missed or that broader searches were likely to find them.
The court directed the plaintiffs to search for the terms “Land Agreement”, “Option Agreement” and “Part Performance”. It also ordered them to provide more detailed descriptions of documents for which they claimed privilege, with a solicitor’s affidavit confirming inspection and the basis for each privilege claim. The parties were directed to engage over disputed privilege claims and identify any documents requiring court review.
The judgment did not set out final orders or decide costs. The case was provisionally listed for mention one week later to address those matters, with liberty for the parties to tell the Registrar if the listing was unnecessary.