Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd (No. 4)

Judgment Date01 January 1991
Date01 January 1991
Docket Number[S.C. No. 48 of 1990]
CourtSupreme Court
Bula Ltd. v. Tara Mines Ltd. (No. 4)
Bula Limited and Others
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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Bula Ltd ((in Receivership)) v Crowley
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1991
    ...general nature of each document and the general classification of privilege being claimed for it. Bula Ltd. v. Tara Mines Ltd. (No. 4)IR[1991] 1 I.R. 217 and Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd.v. A.A.B. Export Finance Ltd.IR [1990] 1 I.R. 469 applied. 2. That the court should be satisfied, as a matte......
  • Ryanair Ltd v Channel 4 Television Corporation
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 October 2017
    ...can get from the description of the documentation. In resolving this, the court was referred to a number of authorities. In Bula Limited v. Tara Mines Limited (No.4) [1991] 1 I.R. 217, Walsh J. stated at p.218: - 'The format suggested by the plaintiffs in their claim appears to me to be in......
  • Irish Press Publications Ltd v Minister for Enterprise
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 October 2002
    ...HAMILTON 1993 2 IR 250 MURPHY V DUBLIN CORP 1972 IR 215 AMBIOREX LTD V MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1992 1 IR 277 BULA LTD V TARA MINES LTD NO4 1991 1 IR 217 Synopsis: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Discovery Litigation - Legal professional privilege - Public interest privilege - Cabinet confidentiality......
  • Ryanair Ltd v Revenue Commissioners
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 December 2016
    ...J. observed as follows: 'The Supreme Court has in recent times twice addressed how the claim to privilege should be made. In Bula Ltd. v Tara Mines Ltd. (No. 4) [1991] 1 I.R. 217 Walsh J. said at p. 218 of the report: " The format suggested by the plaintiffs in his claim herein appears to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT