The High Court has refused Cottonlane Limited’s applications for discovery from Michael and Mary O’Sullivan and Allied Irish Banks plc in proceedings over charges on four development units. Mr Justice Kennedy ruled that Cottonlane, joined as a notice party to the O’Sullivans’ claim, could not use that status to seek inter partes discovery about an issue it was not litigating.
The judgment, delivered on 12 September 2025, concerns discovery applications, not the underlying dispute over whether AIB agreed to release charges on the four units. The O’Sullivans say a 2014 loan restructuring required AIB to release charges on 14 units to allow their sale. AIB says it agreed to the sale of 10, not the remaining four. The O’Sullivans sold all 14 units to Cottonlane, which became registered owner in April 2019, but AIB did not release its charges on the four. The underlying claim remains unresolved in this judgment.
Everyday Finance DAC, which acquired AIB’s interest in the loans and security in January 2020, is also a defendant to the O’Sullivans’ claim. Its counterclaim against the O’Sullivans and Cottonlane alleges the transfer of the four units should be set aside and seeks €4,785,059.16 and other relief. Those are allegations and requested remedies, not findings made in this decision.
Cottonlane sought documents concerning the alleged agreement to release the charges and the O’Sullivans’ efforts to obtain releases. It said the material was relevant to related proceedings against two solicitors and also to the current litigation. The judge held that the requests had been framed by reference to the main claim, rather than Everyday’s counterclaim. AIB is not a party to that counterclaim, so an application against it in that context would require non-party discovery.
The court also found that Cottonlane’s notice-party status did not give it an unrestricted right to participate in private-law issues between other parties. The terms of the 2014 agreement are disputed between the O’Sullivans and AIB; Cottonlane was not a party to that agreement and had filed no pleadings in the main claim. Its interest in possible consequences for its title did not establish a right to seek discovery about that dispute.
The judge further found that Cottonlane had not shown the documents were relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the proceedings. The O’Sullivans and AIB had resolved the scope of their discovery, and AIB had offered Cottonlane conditional access to that material. Cottonlane had not taken up the offer or shown why it was insufficient. The applications could not be treated as non-party discovery applications, and the evidence before the court would not support such orders in any event.
The court said Cottonlane may seek non-party discovery in future if it meets the applicable requirements, including relevance, necessity and proportionality, and first exhausts other routes. The case was listed for final orders on 16 October 2025. This judgment did not decide the underlying claim or counterclaim.