Bula Ltd ((in Receivership)) v Crowley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: [NEM DISS],FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Neutral Citation: 1990 WJSC-SC 150
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 52, 53 & 54 of 1990]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1991

1990 WJSC-SC 150

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Griffin J.

O'Flaherty J.

52, 53 & 54/90

BULA LTD v. CROWLEY

BULA LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS.

Plaintiffs

and

LAURENCE CROWLEY, NORTHERN BANK FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,ULSTER INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED, ALLIED IRISH INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED ANDMcKAY AND SCHNELLMANN LIMITED

Defendants

Citations:

BULA LTD V TARA MINES LTD UNREP SUPREME 5.2.90

SMURFIT PARIBAS BANK LTD V AAB EXPORT FINANCE LTD UNREP SUPREME 15.2.90

BULA LTD V CROWLEY UNREP HIGH MURPHY 19.12.89 (EX TEMPORE)

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Production - Objection - Privilege - Manner in which privilege to be claimed - Contents of affidavit of documents - Legal professional privilege - Claimant must comply with Rules of Court - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 31, r. 13 - (52-4/90 - Supreme Court - 29/6/90) 1991 1 I.R. 220 1990 ILRM 756

|Bula Ltd. v. Crowley|

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Sufficiency - Further discovery - Necessity - Probability of existence of further documents - Affidavit of documents - Admission of relevance of specified documents - Admission withdrawn - Withdrawal affected by subsequent concession relating to some documents - Further discovery ordered to restore all documents - (52-4/90 - Supreme Court - 29/6/90) - [1991] 1 I.R. 220 - [1990] ILRM 756

|Bula Ltd. v. Crowley|

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Sufficiency - Further discovery - Necessity - Probability of existence of further documents - Documents passing between defendants - Documents created after commencement of action - (52-4/90 - Supreme Court - 29/6/90)

|Bula Ltd. v. Crowley|

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 29th day of June 1990by FINLAY C.J. [NEM DISS]

2 These are three appeals against Orders made in the High Court with regard to discovery in these proceedings. Although the appeals relate to different Defendants the questions raised by them are interrelated. Although they arise on Motions nominally seeking the striking out of a defence as the primary reliefthe relief really sought in each case is further and betterdiscovery.

3 They are as follows:

4 1. An appeal against the Order made in the Motion brought against the Defendant Laurence Crowley seeking:

5 (a) a listing by him by way of further discovery of the individual documents in regard to which he claims legal professional privilege;

6 (b) further and better discovery of communications between him and the Defendant McKay and Schnellmann Limited after the date of the institution of these proceedings against the first Defendant, namely, the 2nd July 1986.

7 2. An appeal against the Order made on the Motion against the Defendants McKay and Schnellmann seeking that they should list the individual documents in respect of which they claim privilege.

8 3. An appeal against the Order made on the Motion against NBFC seeking further discovery of ten groups ofdocuments contained in ten separate files which were included in the original Affidavit sworn by Mr. Condell on their behalf and which were by a subsequent Affidavit excluded as not being relevant to any of the issues in the action and as having been included in the original Affidavit of Discovery by a computer error.

9 With regard to these several appeals I have come to the followingconclusions.

10 The two issues arising on these appeals with regard to the proper manner of identifying documents in respect of which a legal professional privilege is claimed in an affidavit of discovery, that is to say, the appeal in the Motion against the Defendant Laurence Crowley and the appeal in the Motion against the Defendants McKay and Schnellmann Limited raises an issue which, in my view, is clearly covered by a decision of this Court which is unreported but which was delivered on the 5th February 1990 in a case of Bula Limited v. Tara MinesLimited.

11 In an ex tempore judgent delivered as the agreedjudgment on that occasion by Walsh J., a transcribed copy of which has been approved by him, he dealt shortly but extremely...