The High Court has ordered Nahj Company for Services to answer interrogatories from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland on affidavit by 10 December 2020. Mr Justice Garrett Simons rejected three procedural objections to the questions but left the plaintiff able to raise other objections under the relevant court rules.
The ruling concerns a dispute over an arrangement for recruiting students from Saudi Arabia to the College’s medical commencement programme. The parties disagree on whether it was a partnership or an exclusive agency agreement. The plaintiff says it was due a €5,000 commission for each student recruited.
The College’s defence includes a claim that a directive from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Higher Education in or around June 2010 required future recruitment through the Saudi Embassy’s cultural section in London. The College says the directive made the arrangement impossible to perform. The court did not decide the underlying contractual dispute in this judgment.
The plaintiff alleges that the College continued to charge fees that included the commission, concealed an earlier fee calculation error and wrongfully retained or redirected money. It also alleges breach of fiduciary duties. Those are pleaded allegations, not findings on the merits.
The College delivered interrogatories in October 2019 without first seeking the court’s leave, then applied for an order requiring answers. The plaintiff argued that leave was required, challenged the College solicitor’s affidavit as hearsay and said the questions could let the College avoid calling witnesses who could be cross-examined.
The judge held that the pleaded claim sought relief on grounds of “fraud” and “breach of trust” within the meaning of Order 31, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He said those terms include equitable allegations of dishonesty and breach of fiduciary duty; they do not require a claim of criminal fraud or an express trust. The College was therefore entitled to serve interrogatories without prior leave.
The judge rejected the affidavit objection because deciding whether leave was required depended on the pleadings, not disputed facts. He also rejected the witness argument, saying the need to call witnesses would depend on the answers. The plaintiff had not applied to set aside the interrogatories as oppressive, and that objection was not properly before the court.
The order requires a plaintiff nominee to answer by 10 December 2020, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to object under Order 31, rule 6. The court has not ruled on the merits of the interrogatories or the underlying claims. The judge’s provisional view was that costs should be awarded to the College, with execution stayed until the proceedings are determined; the parties could make written submissions on costs and the precise form of the order.