The High Court has refused an application by Michael Leahy to strike out the defence of two defendants in a dispute over materials supplied for his worktop manufacturing business. The court directed the defendants to provide further affidavits addressing specified discovery issues, with the timeframe to be decided after hearing from the parties.
Leahy claims that edgings supplied by Doellken-Kunststoffverarbeitung GmbH and Eirfoam Limited were unsuitable for his manufacturing process and that delays matching their colour to his worktops affected production in 2004 and 2005. He alleges negligence, negligent misstatement and misrepresentation by all three defendants, including OSB Group Limited, and claims losses of €22.7 million. The defendants dispute key parts of his account, including whether a May 2004 visit to Doellken’s factory was a specification meeting or an exploratory visit.
Justice Conor Dignam considered Leahy’s application under Order 19 Rule 28, the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Order 31 Rule 21, which concerns non-compliance with discovery orders. He refused to strike out the defence under the first two routes, finding that the pleadings contained denials and other answers that could succeed if established. He also said the documentary material relied on by Leahy was part of a wider, disputed evidential picture that could not be resolved on this application.
The judge also refused to strike out the defence for alleged discovery failures. He found that the defendants’ failure to list a 2004 fax was not culpable on the evidence before him, noting that Leahy had the document and that the defendants’ amended defence admitted the May 2004 visit. On other disputed document categories, including records of that visit and testing, he said the evidence did not establish a culpable breach warranting the requested sanction.
However, the judge identified gaps and unclear responses requiring follow-up. He directed that an employee or officer of either defendant swear an affidavit addressing matters previously covered by the defendants’ solicitor, and that further and better discovery address specified categories. These include records relating to the May 2004 visit, possible 2005 laboratory work, reports about a visit to Leahy’s premises, correspondence with IMA, and a possible 2005 meeting. The court did not determine the underlying liability dispute or order the defence struck out.