The Court of Appeal has dismissed challenges to two discovery categories in litigation over Ireland’s second GSM mobile telephony licence, narrowed a third, and upheld a fourth with a costs condition.
The ruling concerns two sets of proceedings brought by Comcast International Holdings Incorporated, Declan Ganley, Ganley International Limited and GCI Limited. They seek declarations that decisions extending the tender deadline and awarding the licence to Esat Telecommunications Limited were unlawful, along with damages on several pleaded grounds. Those claims remain allegations; this appeal concerned discovery, not their determination.
The State defendants appealed parts of a High Court order requiring discovery of documents. After the appeal hearing, the parties agreed a period covering documents generated from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2002, and agreed that several categories no longer required a decision from the Court of Appeal. The remaining dispute concerned categories 8, 9, 13 and 22.
The court dismissed the appeal against category 8, covering records of tender review and evaluation, including guidance, internal communications, minutes and reports. It held the category was relevant to the amended pleadings, which included detailed allegations about changes to the evaluation method and alleged interference. Those allegations are denied. The court said it was deciding discovery by reference to the pleadings and did not decide whether the amendments had impermissibly widened the case.
The court also dismissed the appeal against category 9, seeking documents about the identities and qualifications of those who evaluated tenders. The pleadings allege that the evaluation lacked necessary expertise, an allegation the State defendants denied. The court considered discovery of those records within the range of decisions open to the High Court.
Category 13 sought all documents relating to the licence award phase. The Court of Appeal found that too broad in light of the pleaded issues. It limited discovery to documents concerning Esat’s ownership structure and Communicorp’s financial strength or standing between 26 October 1995 and 6 May 1996.
Category 22 concerned Advent International’s investment in Communicorp. The respondents relied on allegations that representations about the investment and funding were false; those allegations were denied. The court upheld discovery against the State defendants, treating it as equivalent to non-party discovery because the allegations were directed at co-defendants. It ordered the respondents to indemnify the State defendants for the costs of complying with that category.
The court said it would hear further submissions on the precise form of the final orders, the compliance period and costs.