The High Court has ruled on four discovery motions in James Elliott Construction Limited’s deceit proceedings concerning aggregate supplied from the Bay Lane quarry, granting some requests and refusing others. The court has not determined whether the alleged deceit occurred or the claims against the defendants. It said the parties would be heard further on the form and timing of the orders.
The proceedings allege that Irish Asphalt Limited and the other defendants were responsible for deceit in supplying material from the quarry. The defendants deny the allegations and the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The dispute concerns Clause 804 and 3 Inch Down aggregate, which the plaintiff says contained pyrite and caused damage to construction projects.
In her 15 June 2016 judgment, Ms Justice Costello applied the requirements that requested documents be relevant to pleaded issues, necessary for fair disposal or saving costs, and proportionate. Among the plaintiff’s requests against Irish Asphalt, she ordered discovery of testing records, with different cut-off dates depending on whether a category concerned the rock’s quality or the defendants’ knowledge. Testing categories 9 and 10, for example, were allowed up to 13 June 2008; complaints and concerns about Bay Lane material were limited to 31 August 2007. She also allowed discovery of quarry-manager and managerial employees’ diaries for the period before 31 August 2007.
The judge refused several broader requests, including documents about production processes, crushing and waste disposal, company relationships and management structures, and records held by non-party companies where the proposed order would amount to delegated discovery. She also refused discovery sought from the other defendants about a possible sale of the quarry and test results from other quarries.
On the other defendants’ request for documents from the plaintiff, the judge ordered discovery of testing records concerning third-party material used at the Sillogue 4 project. She did not extend broader requests about project use, inspections and quality control beyond the 16 projects listed in the pleadings.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to disclose documents relating to its claimed losses. It declined to let the plaintiff satisfy two other agreed discovery categories by relying on discovery affidavits from earlier proceedings. The judgment records that further submissions were required on the orders’ form, timing and sequence.