Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd (No. 4)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Date: 01 January 1991
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 48 of 1990]
• Court: Supreme Court

Bula Ltd. v. Tara Mines Ltd. (No. 4)

Bula Limited and Others

Plaintiffs

and

Tara Mines Limited and Others, Defendants (No. 4)

[S.C. No. 48 of 1990]

Supreme Court

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Format of affidavit of discovery - Whether documents should be individually identified - Exchange of affidavits of discovery - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 31, r. 13.

The High Court made an order and cross order for discovery and ordered that the affidavits of discovery be exchanged in court. The second, third and fourth defendants did not complete their affidavits of discovery on time and the plaintiffs objected to handing over their affidavit of discovery to the other defendants until all parties were in a position to exchange affidavits. The High Court ordered the exchange of completed affidavits notwithstanding the unpreparedness of the second, third and fourth defendants.

The affidavits of the first, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants claimed legal professional privilege for certain documents which were grouped together under generic descriptions in the affidavit of discovery. The plaintiffs objected that this was insufficient particularisation of the claim for privilege and so the affidavit failed to comply with the format required by O. 31, r. 13 and the plaintiffs sought further and better discovery accordingly. The High Court (Murphy J.) refused to order the first, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants to make further and better discovery particularising the documents for which privilege was claimed. The plaintiffs appealed both orders to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court (Walsh, Griffin and McCarthy JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, 1, that the existing affidavits should be exchanged. There was no good reason to delay exchanging affidavits and in particular the Court rejected any suggestion of bad faith on the part of any party to the action.

2. That no claim of privilege should be made unless the documents for which privilege is claimed are identified and properly indicated.

3. That the plaintiffs' application that the documents fur which privilege was claimed should be listed and described individually was required by O. 31, r. 13 and Appendix C Form 10 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and accordingly all affidavits should be in this form.

Motion on notice.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote. In July, 1989, the High Court (Murphy J.) made an order and cross-order for discovery and...