The High Court has ordered an accounting practice to disclose specified records in a commercial action in which an engineer alleges that his assets and income were misappropriated and his signature falsified on documents. The ruling deals with discovery only: the court made no finding on whether the allegations are true.
In a judgment delivered on 13 May 2015, Ms Justice Costello considered the plaintiff’s application against the second and third defendants, referred to as the practice defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant and the accounting practice managed his finances and affairs from 1980 to 2014. Those claims remain allegations in the proceedings.
The practice defendants sought to confine many categories to documents held by the practice. The judge accepted that discovery could cover only documents in their possession, power or procurement. She said the proposed limit did not reduce the scope of what they could be required to disclose and could avoid later disputes. She also noted that the first defendant had separately agreed to make discovery of documents in his possession in like terms for some categories.
The court ordered discovery in several areas, including the practice’s correspondence about the plaintiff’s affairs, but removed references to correspondence with local authorities. It limited records of services and fees provided to the fifth defendant to 2011–2013, and required invoices, supporting service records and receipts. For invoices concerning the plaintiff’s engineering work, discovery was confined to the practice’s involvement in issuing invoices to the named companies.
The judge ordered discovery of documents about the practice’s authority to execute agreements for the plaintiff. She rejected a broader request for all documents signed on his behalf by someone else as too vague and not tied to specific pleaded matters, while noting the practice defendants had agreed to disclose records concerning documents identified in the statement of claim.
Other requests were refused or narrowed. The court refused discovery of the practice’s service records for Monvoy Developments Limited, while noting that supporting audit documents relating to a pleaded €534,500 figure had been offered. It allowed discovery of audit documents prepared for Archdale Construction Limited, but not records concerning other corporate entities described only generally. It also refused a broad request covering any money, asset or property managed by the practice from 1980 onward, finding it vague and unnecessary given the more specific categories ordered.
The judge declined requests for documents underlying several defence allegations about the plaintiff’s tax, banking and financial conduct, saying the defendants’ pleaded replies indicated those claims were based on documents the plaintiff would normally have received or on conclusions, rather than records held by the practice. She directed discovery in accordance with the judgment. The underlying action and the alleged fraud were not decided by this ruling.