The High Court has ordered Dublin Port Company and Marine Terminals Limited to disclose a limited set of documents in a planning enforcement case brought by residents of Pigeon House Road, Ringsend.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley rejected the argument that discovery is unavailable in proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. She said there was no hard and fast rule: whether discovery is appropriate depends on the circumstances of each case.
The residents allege that activity at Marine Terminals Limited’s container site intensified, particularly at night, and that cranes and an extension to a control room facilitated the change. They say the resulting noise, lighting and traffic affected the area. The company disputes that account, saying the works improved efficiency, night-time work had not increased and container volumes had fallen. Those claims remain disputed in the source judgment; the court was deciding an application for discovery, not the underlying planning and nuisance claims.
Justice O’Malley said the parties agreed that the issues were not particularly unusual or complex. The residents had a factual basis for their claim, and relevant records were likely to be held by the respondents. Discovery could therefore assist in resolving the evidential dispute. She also noted that the residents were not seeking an immediate mandatory order without a full opportunity for the respondents to present their case, and that no immediate irreversible effects were alleged.
The court found that the 15 categories requested were too broad. It said producing them all would bog down the case, some material was irrelevant, and some commercially sensitive documents lacked sufficient justification for disclosure. In particular, Dublin Port Company was not responsible for the whole port, so the respondents could not be expected to produce records for every vessel passing through Dublin Port since 2000.
The order was confined to operational reports, monthly gate reports and monthly staffing rosters for 2005 to 2013; noise-monitoring reports; proposals to the parent company concerning the purchase of rail-mounted gantry cranes; and crane purchase documents for 2000 to 2009. The staffing order excludes staff reports. The judgment did not determine whether the alleged intensification or unauthorised development occurred.