The High Court has ordered further document searches in the contract dispute between the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board and BAM Building Limited over construction of the National Children’s Hospital at St James’s Hospital in Dublin.
The proceedings concern the validity of an instruction issued on 8 January 2019 directing BAM to begin Phase B of the project. That issue is central to disputes over the timing and final cost of the hospital.
BAM says the instruction was invalid for several reasons. One issue which emerged from earlier discovery concerns Clare White of O’Connell Mahon Architects, who signed the instruction. BAM alleges she had not then been validly appointed as the contract’s Employer’s Representative. The Board disputes that and says she was authorised to act.
A second discovery order made in October 2025 required additional documents concerning White’s appointment, the role of Building Design Partnership and O’Connell Mahon Architects, and the Employer’s Representative arrangements.
BAM later challenged the adequacy of the Board’s resulting discovery. It argued, among other points, that White should have been treated as an individual custodian whose emails, devices and documents were specifically searched.
Mr Justice Michael Quinn agreed on that point. Given that White signed the disputed Phase B instruction and was central to the amended pleadings, the judge held that collecting documents generally from her architectural firm did not provide the same rigour as a dedicated custodian search.
The court also found an unexplained gap after 8 August 2023, the date on which a sub-consultancy agreement involving O’Connell Mahon Architects was signed. It ordered the Board to collect and discover all documents from that date onwards falling within the four categories covered by the second discovery order.
However, the judge rejected BAM’s wider arguments that the relatively small number of documents produced demonstrated a defective discovery process. He also refused further orders concerning other proposed custodians, previously discovered documents and the overall electronic review methodology.
The case was listed again for 24 July 2026 to address the precise form of the order and costs.