Bula v Crowley (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1994
• Date: 01 January 1994
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 220 of 1993]
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

[S.C. No. 220 of 1993]

Bula Ltd. v. Crowley (No. 2.)

Bula Limited (In receivership) and Others

Plaintiffs

and

Laurence Crowley and others, Defendants (No. 2)

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia (1876) 2 Ch. D. 644; 45 L.J. Ch. 449; 35 L.T. 76; 24 W.R. 624.

Greenough v. Gaskill (1833) 1 My. & K. 98; 39 E.R. 618.

Jones v. G.D. Searle & Co. Ltd. [1979] 1 W.L.R. 101; [1978] 3 All E.R. 654.

Minter v. Priest [1929] 1 K.B. 655 (C.A.); [1930] A.C. 558; [1930] All E.R. Rep. 431; (1930) 99 L.J.K.B. 391; 143 L.T. 57; 46 T.L.R. 301; 74 S.J. 200 (H.L.).

Murphy v. Kirwan [1994] I.L.R.M. 293.

Northern Bank v. Charlton (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 26th May, 1977).

Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd. v. A.A.B. Export Finance Ltd. [1990] 1 I.R. 469; [1990] I.L.R.M. 588.

Practice - Documents - Discovery - Privilege - Legal professional privilege - Proceedings - Issue - Negligent failure to follow legal advice - Discovery sought of documents containing legal advice - Material to issue between parties - Whether documents exempt from privilege - Whether discretion vested in court to inspect documents and refuse production - Moral turpitude.

Notice of Motion.

The facts are summarised in the headnote, ante.

By notice of motion dated the 6th December, 1991, re-entered as against the first defendant by notice of re-entry dated the 10th March, 1993, the plaintiffs applied for an order directing discovery and production by the first defendant for inspection by the court and the plaintiffs of all documents in relation to the legal advice sought or received by him in respect of certain agreements between the first plaintiff and a third party. The application was heard by the High Court (Murphy J.) on the 26th May, 1993 and, in a reserved judgment delivered on the 16th June, 1993, was refused.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal dated the 14th July, 1993.

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., Egan and Denham JJ.) on the 11th October, 1993.

The plaintiffs brought proceedings in the High Court against the defendants claiming, as against the first defendant, inter alia, that he was negligent in carrying out his duties as receiver of the first plaintiff insofar as he had tailed to follow certain legal advice which he had obtained. The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking discovery and production by the defendants of documents containing the legal advice which the first defendant had received, which motion was refused by the High Court (Murphy J.) on the 16th June, 1993, on the grounds that the documents were privileged. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs, inter alia, that, where discovery was sought of documents by which legal advice was sought or given, the court should, as a matter of law, refuse to exempt such documents from production on the grounds of legal professional privilege where the question whether, and in what terms, advice was sought or received was in issue. In the alternative, it was submitted that the court had a discretion to refuse to exempt the documents from production if, on an inspection of the documents, the court came to the conclusion, in the light of their contents and the allegations against the defendant...