The High Court has refused a defendant’s application for further discovery in a case over loans originally made by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd, ruling that the requested material was not relevant or necessary to the remaining issues in the proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2015, Ms Justice Costello said the only issues left in the case were those identified in the permitted pleadings. The application concerned three categories of documents sought from LSREF III Stone Investments Limited, the substituted plaintiff. The defendant, John Morrissey, already had redacted copies of the loan sale agreement, the deed of transfer and the assignment notices.
The dispute followed the transfer of the loans and associated proceedings from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, which had entered special liquidation. The plaintiff said the loans were assigned to it by a deed of transfer dated 11 July 2014. Earlier in the proceedings, the court had determined the amount due on the borrowings and allowed the defendant a €143,676.64 credit for interest overcharging.
For category A, the defendant sought communications between the plaintiff and IBRC or its special liquidators, along with unredacted versions of the loan sale agreement and deed of transfer. The judge said a plea putting the plaintiff on strict proof of the agreement did not entitle the defendant to search broadly through documents leading to its execution. She also found that interpreting the deed did not require the unredacted agreement, and that new allegations of illegality could not be introduced outside the permitted pleadings. The court made no discovery order for this category. The plaintiff had offered a redacted deed of transfer, and the defendant accepted that redactions covering other borrowers’ personal data were appropriate.
The court also refused category B, which sought records about the existence or consequences of the loan sale. The legal bases on which the plaintiff relied for the assignment were matters for legal argument, the judge said; the plaintiff was not required to choose only one basis.
Category C sought documents about letters dated 23 and 28 July 2014, which the plaintiff relied on as notices of assignment. The defendant accepted that he had received the letters and held copies, but argued they had been improperly served. Whether the notices were legally effective remained to be decided. The judge said the request for related documents was nevertheless unnecessary because the dispute concerned who had issued the notices, not the letters themselves.
The court made no orders for discovery on the motion. The judgment did not resolve whether the assignment notices were valid or whether the substituted plaintiff was entitled to judgment.