The High Court has refused an application to dismiss a claim over rare stamps and related items after the plaintiff filed a second supplemental affidavit of discovery shortly before the hearing.
The action was brought by Paul Campion against Patricia Wat. In his statement of claim, Campion said he owned rare stamps, associated certificates and a security deposit cheque, and alleged that Wat had wrongfully possessed the stamps since a date before July 2006. He sought delivery of the items, damages and other relief. Wat denied ownership, possession, demands for delivery, conversion and loss. Her defence also raised limitation, delay, prejudice and other objections.
The plaintiff put the value of the items allegedly detained at about €631,592. The cheque was described as a €2,500 security deposit cheque written to a third party.
The defendant applied to dismiss the claim for failure to comply with a discovery order made by the High Court in June 2012. Her counsel argued that earlier discovery affidavits were deficient and that the plaintiff’s pleadings suggested he must have further documents to disclose. The plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged deficiencies in the earlier affidavits but said the latest affidavit represented his best effort to address them and that there had been no intention to mislead.
Justice Sean Ryan said discovery rules are intended to secure compliance with court orders and facilitate the fair disposal of proceedings. He said that, once discovery had been made in appropriate form, the court could not determine from affidavits alone whether the plaintiff’s explanations were true. That assessment would require a hearing, including cross-examination.
The judge also noted that the defendant had not identified particular prejudice arising from the late filing of the second supplemental affidavit or sought an adjournment to present further material. He said the defendant could still challenge the plaintiff’s assertions and conduct at trial.
The court refused the application to dismiss the claim, having regard to the plaintiff’s compliance, or purported compliance, with the discovery order. The ruling did not decide the underlying ownership and possession disputes, or the credibility of the plaintiff’s explanations; those matters remained for trial.