The High Court has directed David Dully to swear a further affidavit about documents sought from members of Athlone Town Stadium Limited’s management committee, and to correct wording in his existing affidavit of discovery.
In a judgment delivered on 16 July 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on a motion by the company, dated 20 June, seeking discovery and particulars. The dispute concerns a trust and property, as well as remaining claims including damages. Earlier orders removed the company as trustee and directed transfer of the legal interest in the property to a newly appointed trustee. A later order allowed Dully to pursue the remaining reliefs, including damages, by special summons. This judgment did not decide the damages claim.
The court ordered Dully to confirm that he had contacted all management committee members seeking documents specified in the company’s discovery request. That obligation is subject to his assessment of whether documents held by committee members are relevant to the requested categories and whether privilege applies.
He must also amend paragraph 3 of his discovery affidavit. The corrected wording must say that there are no other documents “coming within the request for discovery made by the defendant,” rather than stating that there are no other documents relevant to matters in the suit. The judge said the original wording was inaccurate because it suggested a general discovery search, while the affidavit concerned the specific categories sought.
The company had challenged whether all documents concerning an alleged €25,978 indebtedness linked to a proposed astroturf pitch had been produced. The judge said the affidavit’s wording needed correction and ordered the further confirmation about committee members. The judgment does not determine whether the alleged indebtedness existed or whether the documents sought are held by those members.
The court refused discovery of documents about third-party contributions, saying the plaintiff’s position that costs were met from the club’s own resources could be challenged at the damages hearing. It also refused a request for documents about consideration of notifying the defendant of likely costs, finding discovery unnecessary and inappropriate.
The judge rejected the particulars sought about Dully’s authority to pursue damages, how any award would be distributed, and possible loss to the club. He relied on his earlier ruling that Dully was suing on behalf of club members and said the defendant lacked standing to raise the authority issue. The operative order in this judgment is limited to the further affidavit and amendment described above.