The High Court has directed Everyday Finance DAC’s solicitor to explain the redactions in two deeds relating to the transfer of Aidan Farrell’s loans and mortgage securities from AIB, after finding the deeds were liable to inspection under court rules.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2022, Ms Justice Stack said the defendant must provide a further affidavit setting out, clause by clause, why material had been redacted and what the redacted sections contain. The court listed the matter for an early mention to hear the defendant’s proposed timetable. It did not order the deeds to be disclosed unredacted, nor decide the parties’ underlying dispute about the loans or the validity of the transfer.
Farrell’s application arose in proceedings concerning loans secured against eleven properties in Donegal and Dublin. He sought documents showing Everyday Finance’s asserted succession to AIB’s interests, alongside other relief. The defendant relied on a Global Deed of Transfer dated 2 August 2018 and an Amended and Reinstated Global Deed of Transfer dated 22 October 2018, exhibiting redacted copies of both.
Justice Stack held that the inspection right under Order 31, rule 15 applied to documents specifically identified in the pleadings. The defence named the two deeds by date, but its broader references to other transfer documents did not identify specific documents and did not create a right to inspect them under that rule. The judge noted that discovery was available to seek other documents.
The defendant said the redactions protected commercially sensitive information, including the global price paid for the loan book, and personal information relating to other borrowers. The judge accepted that legitimate commercial interests and third-party confidentiality could justify redactions, but said the explanations provided were too general to assess whether the redactions went too far. She said the plaintiff’s case raised issues beyond whether Everyday Finance held title, including pleaded arguments about redemption and the price of the loans. The court did not rule on the merits of those arguments.
The further affidavit is to identify the basis for each redaction and describe its contents. For the lengthy schedules, it should confirm that omitted material relates to third parties. Any price specific to Farrell’s loans, if stated in either deed, should be disclosed; the global loan-book consideration could remain redacted if its commercial sensitivity is justified.
The judge also refused the application under section 91 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, finding that the request at this stage sought litigation advantage rather than documents needed to redeem, convey an interest or assess enforcement authority. Her comments on the section’s possible scope were expressly obiter, with its precise ambit left for trial. She declined additional relief under Order 50, rule 4, which she said concerns preservation of physical evidence.