Campion v Wat

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Sean Ryan
• Judgment Date: 08 February 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 45
• Docket Number: [No. 7213 P/2011.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 08 February 2013

Campion v Wat

BETWEEN

PAUL CAMPION

PLAINTIFF

AND

PATRICIA WAT

DEFENDANT

[2013] IEHC 45

[No. 7213 P/2011.]

THE HIGH COURT

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Dismissal of proceedings

Discovery - Failure to comply - Dismiss claim for failure to make discovery - Supplemental affidavit of discovery furnished at hearing of motion - Whether full hearing necessary to determine if discovery sufficient - Whether appropriate to dismiss claim - Murphy v J Donohoe Ltd [1996] 1 IR 123 applied - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 31 r 12 - Application refused (2011/7213P - Ryan J - 8/2/2013) [2013] IEHC 45

Campion v Wat

Facts: The plaintiff had asserted ownership of certain assets including rare stamps following his divorce from the defendant. The defendant was alleged to have wrongfully retained possession of said assets, and the plaintiff began proceedings seeking various reliefs. The defendant now sought to have the claim dismissed on the basis of lack of discovery by the plaintiff.

Held by Ryan J, that discovery had been made in the case, and it was not appropriate for the Court at this stage to strike a claim out on the basis of affidavit evidence alone. Counsel for the defendant would have the opportunity to raise the plaintiff”s conduct, or alleged lack of compliance with orders of the Court, at the trial. The application would therefore be dismissed. Murphy v J Donohue Limited [1996] 1 IR 123 applied.

RSC O.31 r12

MURPHY v J DONOGHUE LTD & ORS 1996 1 IR 123 1995 2 ILRM 509 1995 10 2912

Mr. Justice Sean Ryan

1 This is an application to dismiss the plaintiff's claim because of his failure to make discovery of documents as ordered by this Court.

2 According to the statement of claim delivered on the 22^nd November, 2011, the plaintiff and defendant were married in Hong Kong on the 10^th September, 1991 and divorced there on the 30^th May, 2002. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of rare stamps and associated certificates and a security deposit cheque, as scheduled in the statement of claim. He pleads that the defendant is and has been since a date unknown prior to July 2006 wrongfully in possession of the said stamps. The plaintiff seeks delivery of the stamps and cheque, damages for detention, conversion and other reliefs.

3 The defence was delivered on the 14^th December, 2011. It begins with preliminary objections that the plaintiff's claims are statute barred; that he has been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay leading to prejudice of the defendant in her defence of the action; that the statement of claim fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action in detinue or conversion; and that the action is vexatious and abuse of process.

4 Paragraph 2 of the defence denies that the plaintiff was or is the owner of the stamps and associated documents or entitled to their possession; denies that the defendant has been in possession of such materials; denies the plaintiff's alleged demands and any alleged refusals by her to deliver up the same materials; denies that she ever had them in her possession or sold them; denies that she converted the same to her own use or deprived the plaintiff of them; denies that the plaintiff has suffered loss or damage; and denies that she destroyed or disposed of them.

5 The defendant also denies that she converted the security deposit cheque that in respect of which the plaintiff claims, which is a reference to the that the plaintiff was beneficially entitled to the proceeds of a security deposit cheque written to a Mr Iain Finnegan in the sum of €2,500.

6 The plaintiff that the value of the items allegedly detained by the defendant from him have a value of approximately €631,592.

7 Mr. Matthias Kelly, SC presented this application on behalf of the defendant. In support of his application he submitted a document containing a procedural summary; detailed information about the chronology; a series of complaints about the adequacy of the discovery that was provided; submissions on behalf of the defendant in support of the application to dismiss; and relevant authorities.

8 When the matter came on for hearing before me on the 24^th...