The High Court dismissed most of Deerfield Commercial Services’ discovery application in its dispute with Ronan and Jackie McNamee over a claimed fee of more than €2 million. It granted the defendants’ discovery motion, subject to a limit on one category of financial documents, and ordered discovery within 12 weeks. The underlying claim remains for trial.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave his reasons on 24 September 2020 for orders made on 8 September. The plaintiff says it agreed in November 2010 to advise the defendants for a monthly retainer and a percentage of any financial haircut following a liquidity event. It claims the defendants received a €47 million haircut and seeks €2,014,650 in damages. The judgment does not decide whether the alleged agreement existed, who made it, or whether the plaintiff’s work produced the haircut.
The defendants deny the contract and the work alleged. Their position is that their agreement was with Mr Dan O’Connor, whose role was later reduced, and that other advisers were involved by the time the haircut arose. The judge noted that the Court of Appeal had previously allowed the plaintiff’s appeal against an order striking out the case as bound to fail. That decision meant only that the case was not bound to fail at that stage; the identity of any contracting parties remained disputed for trial.
The plaintiff’s discovery request was refused except for an agreed category concerning an agreement with Mr O’Connor, and documents covered by an offer from the defendants concerning contractual documents for the financial haircut. The judge said other requests were too broad, lacked a sufficient basis in the pleadings, sought material the plaintiff should already possess, or sought evidence to build its case through discovery.
The defendants were granted discovery of documents about the alleged agreement, the advice and assistance said to have been provided, relevant financial statements and documents supporting the plaintiff’s calculation of the haircut. The financial material is limited to what is relevant to the work allegedly done by the plaintiff.
The judge allowed 12 weeks for discovery, with Mr O’Connor and Mr McNamee to swear the required affidavits. Costs of both motions were awarded to the defendants, but stayed until the conclusion of the trial at the plaintiff’s request. The discovery order was also stayed for 28 days or until determination of any appeal lodged within that period.