The High Court has refused a defendant’s application for further discovery in a dispute over a €1.25 million fee claimed by property services firm C.B. Richard Ellis. The court found the additional document requests unnecessary in light of disclosures the plaintiff had already agreed to make.
Mr Justice Kelly’s judgment, delivered on 22 May 2009, concerned a contested discovery application in the Commercial Court. The plaintiff claims the fee, exclusive of VAT, for services that included work connected with the sale of Block A, Riverside IV, on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin. The transaction also involved the defendant’s acquisition of Hume House on Northumberland Road, Dublin.
The defendant admitted an agreement but pleaded additional terms, including duties of skill, care, advice and loyalty. In his counterclaim, he alleged that the plaintiff advised him Hume House was worth €130 million when its true value was between €65 million and €95 million, and that a €130 million bid was needed despite a competing offer of €102 million. He also alleged that the plaintiff withheld information about Irish Life and discussed or received a fee connected with the transaction. He claimed he paid €35 million above market value and €28 million more than necessary to defeat the competing bid.
The plaintiff accepted that it owed the defendant fiduciary duties of trust, confidence and loyalty but denied breaching them. It said one of its officials advised that Hume House was worth no more than €65 million, but that the defendant instructed bids of €90 million, €92 million and ultimately €130 million. The plaintiff also denied the allegations concerning concealed information and payments from Irish Life.
The judge applied the discovery rules requiring documents to be relevant and necessary for a fair disposal of the case or to save costs, with the scale and burden of requests taken into account. The plaintiff had agreed to disclose, among other material, documents about valuations of Hume House and Riverside IV, relevant communications with Irish Life from January to April 2006, documents showing payments it received from Irish Life relating to the transaction, and its transaction file.
The court refused requests to widen discovery to other companies in the C.B. Richard Ellis group, to seek valuations and working papers across a five-year period, and to obtain broad records of inter-company charges. It also saw no need to order documents the plaintiff intended to rely on at trial, as the plaintiff said it would provide a trial evidence précis with those documents attached.
The application for additional discovery failed. The ruling addressed discovery only; it did not determine the underlying fee claim or counterclaim.