The High Court has declined to order further discovery in a dispute between investor Seán O’Driscoll and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special resolution) and IBRC Assurance Company Limited.
In a judgment delivered on 24 April 2015, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern considered two sets of motions concerning discovery ordered on 7 February 2014. The motions were heard on 21 and 22 January 2015.
The first defendant had sought further and better discovery from Mr O’Driscoll. By the hearing, its complaints concerned two issues: how the plaintiff described privileged documents in his discovery affidavit, and the absence of communications between him and other investors in the funds involved in the proceedings. The plaintiff’s counsel said the original order had been fully complied with, that the privilege claimed was legal professional privilege, and that no such investor communications existed. After the hearing, the plaintiff provided a supplemental affidavit addressing both issues.
The judge said he was satisfied that the plaintiff had fully complied with the original order on those points. He made no further discovery order on Issues 8 and 10.
Mr O’Driscoll’s separate motion against both defendants challenged document redactions, privilege claims and the adequacy of discovery. The defendants’ solicitor said some information had been redacted because it was irrelevant to the discovery categories and commercially sensitive or confidential, including information that could concern other funds. The judge noted that the plaintiff was not challenging the defendants’ bona fides. He also considered affidavits from the solicitor and the first defendant’s special liquidator, who verified the solicitor’s account.
The court was satisfied that the defendants had complied with the 2014 order and that the redactions were proper and justified. The judge also reviewed documents claimed to be legally privileged and concluded that they fell within legal professional privilege and did not have to be produced to the plaintiff.
The judgment resolves the discovery motions described in the source. It does not state the outcome of the underlying proceedings.