The High Court has ordered Irish Pension Trust Limited to disclose certain internal documents and drafts sought by Walter Croke, but declined at this stage to order discovery of documents referring to the company’s legal advisers.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 31 March 2009, concerned Croke’s discovery application against the second defendant. Waterford Crystal Limited and Irish Pension Trust Limited are the defendants. The judgment records that the second defendant pleaded that Croke’s claim was statute barred, while Croke pleaded in reply that Waterford Crystal had fraudulently concealed his cause of action.
The parties had reduced a dispute covering 31 document categories to one fundamental disagreement, with differences also remaining over the scope and timing of discovery in some categories. For the disputed July 2008 category 6, Croke sought documents concerning the position or entitlements of other former employees made redundant under a scheme around 1992, including material relating to earlier proceedings settled around 3 November 2000.
Justice Birmingham said the requested references to the second defendant’s legal advisers concerned material prima facie protected by legal professional privilege. He was not prepared to order its discovery at that stage. However, he found that internal documents of the general character sought could be relevant to the fraudulent-concealment issue and ordered discovery after removing references to legal advisers. He said the detailed terms would be discussed with counsel.
The court also ruled on requests for drafts. It refused drafts of the plaintiff’s employment file and documents about the value of his pension benefit. It ordered drafts of documents concerning information, advice or options provided to Croke about his pension entitlement; documents and minutes of meetings following a written complaint by Walter Cullen dated 27 April 2002; communications from Waterford to Irish Pension Trust; and communications about giving Croke full and accurate information on his entitlements. The drafts ruling for July 2005 category 10 also applied to overlapping July 2008 category 4. Drafts were also ordered for July 2008 category 6.
The parties disagreed over the discovery period: the second defendant offered 1990–1994, while Croke sought 1987–2000, and sought discovery up to the present for July 2008 category 6. The judgment states that the statute-barred and fraudulent-concealment pleadings broadened the dispute and the discovery required. The supplied judgment ends during the court’s discussion of time periods; it does not state a final ruling on the duration of discovery.