The High Court has refused University College Cork’s application to narrow an existing discovery order in its damages case against the Electricity Supply Board, finding that UCC had not shown the order would impose an unreasonable or disproportionate burden. The quantum proceedings, including any discovery required by the order, were stayed by agreement pending the determination of an appeal on liability.
UCC asked the court to vary category 14 of a 2012 discovery order. The category requires documents evidencing the loss and damage claimed, including a loss inventory and related correspondence. UCC proposed limiting it to documents that evidence loss and damage insofar as they relate to quantum.
The case concerns flooding at UCC’s campus in 2009. Liability had been decided in an earlier High Court judgment, which was under appeal; the remaining trial issue was the amount of loss and damage. The parties had tried to address quantum through engagement between their loss adjusters, but the process did not produce agreement. ESB then sought compliance with the original discovery category.
UCC argued that the category was too broad and would capture large volumes of internal and third-party correspondence about flood recovery that were not necessary to assess the claim. It pointed to an earlier discovery exercise that produced 2,537 documents at a cost exceeding €1 million, and a preliminary review suggesting a further 11,770 potentially responsive documents and 6,000 photographs.
The court said the applicant for a variation had to establish that the burden of complying with the existing order was unreasonable, using evidence detailed enough to assess likely time, cost and the value of the documents to the case. It found UCC’s estimates and preliminary review too general to show what remained to be done or how the proposed restriction would reduce the burden.
The judge also considered the information ESB had already received, including loss-adjustment files, invoices, responses to more than 500 queries and other material. But the court said this did not shift the burden of proof to ESB. It further noted that some documents UCC cited as examples of material that should be excluded—such as scopes of repair works and correspondence about damaged infrastructure—could help assess whether claimed costs related to flood damage and were properly incurred.
The court declined to vary category 14. It did not determine the quantum of UCC’s claim. At the parties’ request, it approved a stay of the quantum proceedings, including discovery under the order, until the appeal concerning liability is determined.