The Court of Appeal has allowed Patrick McNally’s appeal against the refusal of a discovery request in his personal-injury proceedings against Molex Ireland Limited and Molex Incorporated. It ordered discovery of records concerning claims of neurodegenerative disorders or injuries associated with trichloroethylene, Gizer or Gun Kat at the defendants’ production or workplace facilities in Ireland and North America.
McNally alleges that he worked at the first defendant’s plant in Shannon, County Clare, from February 1983 to January 1990, repairing tools and machine parts near a cleaning tank containing trichloroethylene. He claims exposure to the solvent caused him to develop Parkinson’s disease. The defendants dispute that he was employed by them and deny that his condition was related to his employment. The judgment records those matters as allegations and defences, not findings on the underlying injury claim.
The disputed discovery category originally sought documents relating to claims at the defendants’ production or workplace facilities worldwide. At the High Court hearing, McNally offered to narrow the geographical scope to Europe and North America, or, if needed, Ireland and North America. Noonan J refused the request on 21 May 2019, citing its potential breadth and burden, and the availability of alternatives such as interrogatories or requests for admissions.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Tobin v Minister for Defence. It said that relevance and necessity remain central to discovery applications, and that a party resisting discovery on grounds of burden or the availability of alternatives must support that position with reasons and, where the dispute depends on facts, evidence.
The defendants had filed no affidavit in response to the discovery motion. The appeal court said they had provided no evidence about the number or location of facilities, likely records, staff time, difficulty or cost involved. Nor had they shown that the proposed alternatives would be substantially less onerous while providing the relevant information. The court said the High Court should not have inferred an undue burden without sufficient evidence.
The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the appeal and ordered discovery in a narrower form than the original worldwide request: documentation in the defendants’ possession or procurement relating to claims of neurodegenerative disorders or injuries from the use of trichloroethylene, Gizer or Gun Kat at their production or workplace facilities in Ireland and North America. The order concerns discovery only; the appeal judgment does not decide the merits of McNally’s personal-injury claim.