The High Court has ordered both sides in a dispute over the liquidation of Decobake Ltd to disclose specified documents, while refusing other requests and limiting several categories of discovery.
Justice Denis McDonald delivered the ruling on 18 July 2018 in proceedings brought by Declan de Lacy, acting as official liquidator of Decobake, against Paul, Margaret, Emily and Amy Coyle. The judgment concerns two discovery motions. It does not decide the parties’ underlying allegations or the ownership of disputed intellectual property.
De Lacy alleges, among other matters, that the defendants obstructed the liquidation, misappropriated €49,491 from a company account, interfered with staff and suppliers, and asserted personal intellectual property rights over products developed by Decobake. The defendants deny the allegations. They allege that de Lacy mishandled the company and claim that Paul Coyle owns the disputed intellectual property. These are competing claims in the proceedings, not findings made in this ruling.
On the liquidator’s motion, the court ordered discovery of communications between the defendants and specified Decobake suppliers, customers, employees and potential purchasers, for the period from 29 June 2017 to 12 April 2018. It also ordered documents about the disputed €49,491 transfer, documents relating to alleged withholding of passwords or access codes, records concerning six company vehicles, and specified social media communications. The court refused the liquidator’s request for broad discovery of company books and records on which the defendants intended to rely. It declined to order discovery of the passwords themselves because an earlier court order already addressed access to them, while allowing discovery of documents about alleged withholding.
On the defendants’ motion, the court ordered discovery of documents concerning the engagement of a security firm, the liquidator’s stocktake, and written material relating to statements in his July 2017 report about an attempted entry by a sheriff. Other orders covered specified tax correspondence, landlord dealings, alleged efforts to deter buyers, the timing of service and the disputed transfer, the liquidator’s efforts to maintain supplies to Musgrave during a limited period, insurance, supplier communications, a vehicle, the Decobake Facebook group, and alleged breaches of duty by two defendants. Documents concerning one employee’s expertise and experience and the development of disputed intellectual property were also ordered; the latter were to be available through a confidentiality club comprising the liquidator’s solicitor, a patent agent for the liquidator and a patent agent nominated by the defendants.
The court refused the defendants’ requests for documents about fixed asset valuations, a broad set of historic financial records and a private message exchange. It also said discovery was limited to documents held, or once held, by a party; it did not require either side to create records. The court left the timing and responsibility for affidavits of discovery, and the costs of the motions, for further submissions. Its preliminary view was that costs should be costs in the cause.