The High Court has refused an application by Barbara Flynn for discovery of documents in her judicial review challenge to a report about the affairs of a charity operated by Ataxia Ireland CLG.
In a judgment delivered on 18 June 2018, Ms Justice Reynolds refused the request in its entirety. The decision addressed only discovery; it did not determine Flynn’s application to quash the report.
The report was prepared by inspectors appointed by the Charities Regulatory Authority under the Charities Act 2009 and published in July 2017. It made findings concerning payments to the charity’s two founding trustees, financial governance and internal controls. Flynn was the charity’s chief executive during the period relevant to the report. Her parents, Tim and Claire Creedon, were founding trustees.
Flynn had been granted leave in November 2017 to seek judicial review, including an order quashing the report. In March 2018, her solicitors sought five categories of documents. The Authority opposed the request, saying discovery was not necessary or appropriate in judicial review proceedings.
The court said discovery in judicial review is generally confined because the court examines how a decision was reached, rather than whether it was correct. It said discovery may be appropriate where a substantial conflict in affidavit evidence must be resolved, but not simply to help a party check or challenge an opponent’s affidavit.
The five categories covered interview and questionnaire records; original complaints and expressions of concern; records of discussions identifying Flynn and her parents as persons of interest; communications with the Revenue Commissioners; and documents about planning a media strategy before publication of the report.
On the interview material, the judge noted that the Authority had already exhibited notes of interviews with Flynn and her parents. Flynn had not identified an affidavit conflict that would justify further discovery. The court also said an explanation had been given for interviewing people who served as trustees during the period under investigation.
The judge found that claims about complainants’ motives and alleged targeting or predetermination were unsupported by factual evidence. She also noted that the Authority had treated complaints confidentially and that it did not rely on engagement with Revenue in making the report’s findings on trustee remuneration. The court said the Authority had confirmed that its head of communications and stakeholder engagement handled publication of the report and an associated press release.
The court refused each category, concluding that none was relevant or necessary to progress the judicial review. The underlying challenge to the report remained separate from this discovery ruling.