The Supreme Court has partly allowed an appeal over discovery in an employment case brought by Patrick von Gordon against four entities in the Helaba banking group. The appeal concerned a small number of disputed document categories ahead of a trial then scheduled for January. The Court decided which documents had to be discovered; it did not decide the underlying employment or banking allegations.
Mr von Gordon, described in the judgment as a manager of the first three defendants, alleged that they routed lending business through their Irish operations to benefit from lower Irish corporation tax and that some lending breached German and Irish law. The defendants denied irregularities, saying their Irish enterprises were licensed for international business and could not conduct ordinary Irish banking. He also alleged that his complaints were ignored and that he faced disciplinary action, lost pay and benefits, and suffered illness. The judgment records that an earlier interlocutory order required the defendants to continue paying his salary and benefits.
The Court refused the appeal against discovery of documents concerning the departures of two former senior executives. Mr von Gordon said they had made similar complaints and were dismissed, and sought to show a pattern. The defendants said their fixed-term contracts had simply not been renewed. Justice Fennelly said the discovery decision did not determine whether evidence about those executives would be admissible at trial; that question was for the trial judge. He also found that the limited request concerning two former employees did not establish sufficient oppression to refuse discovery.
The Court allowed the appeal against discovery of documents about one loan allegedly booked in Dublin in breach of German banking law. It noted the tension between the claim’s reference to non-compliant loans in the plural and Mr von Gordon’s statement at the appeal hearing that this was the only such transaction he knew of. The loan documents also concerned a third party’s confidential business. The Court considered them unnecessary to decide the legal issue and set aside the discovery order for that category.
It also allowed the appeal against two requests for documents supporting the defendants’ assertions that Mr von Gordon was responsible for or contributed to his loss and injury, and that his allegations were false, scandalous and unconscionable. The Court treated these as denials rather than substantive positive pleas requiring discovery. It concluded he could make his case about the alleged banking conduct without those additional documents.
The ruling concerned discovery only. It made no finding on whether the alleged banking practices occurred, whether the former executives were dismissed for making complaints, or whether Mr von Gordon’s claims were true.