The High Court refused Frank and Lorna Burke’s application for discovery in their long-running dispute with Launceston Property Finance Limited, ruling that none of the requested categories should be ordered. The judgment did not determine the separate motion to amend the plaintiff’s title in the proceedings.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar gave judgment on 22 June 2018 on a motion heard on 23 March. The defendants had sought documents about the plaintiff’s purported change to Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company, why an earlier motion had not been brought in the Supreme Court, the number of directorships held by current and former directors, and the companies’ assets. The court had already abridged time for service of the motion and grounding affidavit.
The application arose after the plaintiff sought in December 2017 to change the title of the proceedings to reflect the designated activity company name. The judgment recounted that the Supreme Court had substituted Launceston Property Finance Limited for Anglo Irish Bank Corporation in 2014, and that the Supreme Court appeal was heard in 2016, with judgment in March 2017 and a final order in July 2017.
The court said it could not identify any issue still in dispute that the requested discovery would assist. It referred to Supreme Court authority stating that discovery is intended to aid progress of litigation, rather than help formulate a claim that does not otherwise exist. It also cited an earlier High Court decision concerning discovery after a refusal of summary judgment.
Justice Eagar concluded that discovery should not be ordered and refused the application in all categories sought. He characterised the request as an effort to delay prolonged litigation. The court said it would propose to deal with the plaintiff’s 11 December 2017 motion to amend the title, but this judgment did not decide that motion or grant the requested amendment.