The Court of Appeal has varied a High Court order for discovery in a personal injury action brought by Gavin Tobin against the Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General. It held that several requests for documents were premature and said the plaintiff should first seek information through interrogatories or, where appropriate, a notice to admit facts.
Mr Tobin alleges that he suffered injuries after exposure to toxic chemicals while working as an aircraft mechanic with the Aer Corps at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, between January 1989 and September 1999. His pleaded case identifies exposure in the Engine Repair Flight Workshop (ERF), including through handling chemicals and inhaling fumes. He also alleges that he was subjected to “tubbing” on one occasion at the Light Strike Squadron, in which chemicals were poured over his body while he was tied to a stretcher. These are allegations, not findings on the merits of the personal injury claim.
The High Court had ordered discovery across 13 categories of documents after Mr Tobin sought 15. The State parties appealed the breadth of the order. Evidence before the High Court indicated that locating and reviewing the requested documents would take 10 staff members about 220 hours, with records held manually in different locations.
The appeal court said the pleaded chemical-exposure case was confined to the ERF. It therefore varied the order to limit relevant safety data sheets and environmental records to chemicals used at the ERF and to chemical safety there during the period from 1 January 1990 to 1 September 1999.
For categories 2, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 14, the court allowed the appeal because the discovery applications were premature. The categories concerned chemical-use and purchase records, training, incident and spillage records, and procedures for tasks involving chemicals. The court said Mr Tobin should first apply in the High Court for leave to serve interrogatories or use a notice to admit facts. If those steps did not provide information necessary to pursue his case, he could renew the discovery applications there.
The court did not decide whether the alleged exposure or “tubbing” occurred, whether the defendants were negligent, or the ultimate merits of the personal injury action. Its decision addressed the scope and timing of discovery.