The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by five plaintiffs against an order requiring disclosure of documents and evidence from their applications to the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The records are to help the High Court decide whether their later damages claims concern injuries for which they had already accepted redress awards.
The appeals were heard together. The plaintiffs had each accepted an award under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 and signed a waiver. The defendants argue that the later claims seek damages for the same or substantially the same injuries and should be dismissed under the Act. That question remains for the High Court; the Court of Appeal did not decide whether the claims are barred.
The plaintiffs challenged disclosure on confidentiality and data protection grounds. They argued that section 28 of the 2002 Act prevented them from disclosing their application material. Delivering judgment on 17 May 2018, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the restriction in section 28(1) applies to people who obtain information while performing functions under the Act. The plaintiffs did not perform such functions. The separate ban on publication in section 28(6) did not prevent disclosure through discovery in these proceedings.
The court did not need to decide the meaning or effect of sections 28(5A) and (5B), because its conclusion on section 28(1) resolved that issue. It also rejected the data protection argument, finding that disclosure for the administration of justice and in connection with legal proceedings was permitted.
The court acknowledged the distress that disclosure of sensitive information could cause. It held that the records were relevant and necessary for the High Court to determine what injuries and institutions were covered by each redress application. The defendants were entitled to the material by way of discovery as a matter of fair procedures; a plaintiff’s own account was not enough.
The discovery order requires the information and evidence to be treated as confidential and used solely for these proceedings. Access is limited to the parties’ lawyers and, where needed to prepare for and contest the dismissal motions, consultation with the parties. The appeals were dismissed. The High Court must still decide the defendants’ motions to dismiss.