The High Court has ordered discovery of documents by six Quinn family plaintiffs and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) in proceedings involving the bank, while refusing IBRC’s application for security for the costs of its discovery. The ruling addressed the scope and timing of document disclosure; it did not determine the underlying claims.
Mr Justice Moriarty delivered the judgment on 13 July 2012 after hearing motions over three days. The parties had agreed that much of the requested material was relevant and necessary, leaving disputes mainly about categories and date ranges. The judge said the remaining requests should be managed so relevant material was disclosed without making the burden unmanageable.
For IBRC’s discovery request against the plaintiffs, the court set the period for documents concerning inter-company loans between Quinn or related entities from 1 January 2007 to 31 January 2009. It also ordered discovery of documents about the Quinn Group’s financial position across 2008, including potential breaches of financial covenants in June that year.
For the plaintiffs’ requests against IBRC, the court ordered documents about the purpose or nature of loan facilities, or evidence of their motivation, from 1 September 2007 to 31 March 2009. It set 1 January 2007 to 31 March 2009 for documents concerning IBRC’s knowledge of the Quinn shareholding and contracts for differences positions in its shares, and the possible effect of their disposal on the bank’s share price.
The court also ordered documents from 1 March 2008 to 31 December 2009 concerning the procurement and execution of personal guarantees referenced in the statement of claim. A separate category covering IBRC’s efforts to obtain retrospective legal advice on those guarantees has no date limit. Discovery of share pledges runs from 1 January 2003 to 31 March 2009. Board minutes and relevant material circulated to IBRC board members about the bank’s financial difficulties must cover 1 September 2007 to 31 December 2008.
The judge refused the plaintiffs’ sixth discovery category, finding it imprecise, speculative and burdensome. However, he directed that all versions or iterations of the O’Connor Report be included in IBRC’s discovery under the preceding categories where applicable.
IBRC argued that the plaintiffs should provide security for the costs of discovery. The judge was not persuaded that the rules gave him authority to grant the requested relief against resident individuals. He added that, even if he had that discretion, the balance of the relevant factors favoured refusing security. He cited the importance of the discovery to the plaintiffs, the stage of the proceedings and the case’s public importance.
The court left deadlines for completing discovery and the number of affidavits to be sworn for a further hearing on 27 July. A motion for directions was left to the presiding Commercial Court judge.