The High Court has refused two applications by the plaintiffs for further discovery in a dispute over the purchase of properties on Dorset Street, Dublin 1, while allowing them to call identified witnesses without witness statements if they first provide the defendants with a detailed summary of the evidence those witnesses are expected to give.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore delivered the ruling on 28 January 2021. The underlying action concerns the plaintiffs’ claim that their bid to buy the properties was undermined by the defendants’ unlawful conduct. The defendants deny the claims. The ruling addressed three outstanding motions brought by the plaintiffs; it did not decide the underlying dispute.
The first motion sought documents held by Hugh O’Connor, Ben O’Connor, Aoife O’Connor and Brendan O’Connor concerning the properties between 1 August 2018 and 1 July 2019. The judge refused the request. He said it would impose a potentially problematic duty on the first and fourth defendants to obtain documents held by people who were not parties to the case, and that the category “all documents” concerning the properties was too broad. A previous discovery order had already rejected a broader category, and the plaintiffs had not shown the exceptional circumstances or good reason required to seek it again. The judge also observed that the plaintiffs’ own case placed the alleged wrongdoing by 18 December 2018.
The second motion sought permission to call witnesses who had not provided statements. The judge allowed it, finding that the rules for witness statements should not prevent a party from calling a relevant witness who is unwilling to provide one. The plaintiffs were not required to promise they would call every identified witness, but must give the defendants a detailed précis of the matters each witness may address. The judge said the absence of a statement could be explored in cross-examination.
The third motion sought documents about the beneficial ownership of Quevega Limited, Diakali Limited and the Dorset Street properties. The judge refused it, concluding that the reasons put forward did not establish that the discovery was necessary. He noted that Hugh O’Connor had identified himself in an affidavit as beneficial owner and that an earlier discovery order covered relevant communications, including contact by a beneficial owner acting as a servant or agent of the first defendant. The judge said supplemental discovery must be made if the discovery already provided did not follow that approach.
The ruling therefore granted the second motion subject to the evidence-summary condition, and refused the first and third motions. It made no determination of liability in the underlying action.