The High Court has allowed limited discovery in two related disputes over Flogas-branded gas cylinders, while refusing requests it found irrelevant, unnecessary or commercially sensitive.
Flogas Ireland Limited is seeking injunctions, damages and other relief against Tru Gas Limited and Patrick Morgan in one case, and Langan Fuels Limited in the other. It alleges that the defendants’ use of its cylinders infringes registered trademarks and amounts to passing off. Those claims are not determined in this judgment, which concerns discovery applications by the defendants.
The defendants sought records across several categories, including market assessments, dealer and distributor networks, cylinder procurement, customer records and agreements, pricing, and alleged breaches of property rights by other LPG suppliers or retailers. Flogas agreed to some discovery but objected to requests concerning its Northern Ireland business and to providing commercially sensitive information to competitors.
Applying principles that discovery must relate to pleaded issues and be relevant and necessary, the court ordered discovery of market assessments under Category 1(a) to (f), excluding any reference to Northern Ireland. For Category 2(a), concerning the dealer network, it found the sample Flogas had offered sufficient and refused further discovery, citing commercial sensitivity and lack of necessity. The parties had agreed Category 2(b) and (c).
The court allowed Category 3(a) to (d), covering procurement of butane and propane cylinders, including newly manufactured cylinders, but limited the period to three years before the order and confined the records to the State.
It refused Category 4, which included customer lists and related records, because the documents did not come within the pleaded cases and were not necessary. It refused Category 8, concerning prices and cylinder licence fees, as irrelevant or unnecessary; it also cited commercial sensitivity and insufficient reason to require disclosure. Category 12, concerning alleged breaches by other LPG suppliers or retailers, was refused as irrelevant to the pleadings and unnecessary to resolve the dispute.
The judgment sets the scope of document disclosure for the applications. It does not decide whether the defendants infringed Flogas’s rights or whether the conduct alleged by either side occurred.