The High Court has refused an application by Mary B. Curran to strike out the defence of Bank of Ireland Trust Services Limited and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland over an alleged failure to make proper discovery.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered the judgment on 5 October 2016. He said the court was not satisfied that the defendants had breached either their agreement to make voluntary discovery or the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judgment did not determine the underlying claims, and the trial was listed for 9 November 2016.
Curran’s revised statement of claim alleges that the defendants failed to give beneficiaries a proper account of trusts and estates managed by Trust Services Limited. It also alleges imprudent investments, depletion of assets belonging to her aunt Nora Hayes, conflicts of interest and a failure to make enquiries. These are allegations in the pleadings, not findings in this ruling.
The dispute concerned five categories of documents sought by Curran, relating to the assets of her late aunts. One category referred to Clareville, Golf Links Road, Lahinch, and litigation involving another beneficiary. The defendants provided affidavits of discovery and later supplemental affidavits. Curran’s solicitors argued that the affidavits were defective and sought details of steps taken to obtain documents from bank branches and the solicitor who acted for the estates.
The defendants said the bank had a seven-year document destruction policy and that the aunts’ personal bank accounts were outside the voluntary discovery agreement. The court noted that the affidavits stated, to the deponents’ best knowledge and belief, that the defendants and their solicitors or agents had no other relevant documents beyond those listed.
Justice O’Connor said the court’s role was not to conduct an inquiry into what documents might exist. He observed that if the defendants’ deponents were later found to have failed in their discovery obligations, they could face consequences at trial. He also said the plaintiff’s perceived grievance about disclosure might have remedies other than striking out the defence.
The judge did not rule out a separate application for the older bank account records. He said any such application would need to address relevance, necessity and the interests of justice. The application before him—to strike out the defence for failure to comply with agreed voluntary discovery—was refused.