Green Pastures (Donegal) v Aurivo Co-Operative Society Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Ryan
• Judgment Date: 04 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 209
• Court: High Court
• Date: 04 April 2014

Green Pastures (Donegal) v Aurivo Co-Operative Society Ltd & Ramsey

No Redaction Needed

BETWEEN

GREEN PASTURES (DONEGAL)

PLAINTIFF

AND

AURIVO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND DAVID RAMSEY

DEFENDANTS

[2014] IEHC 209

[No. 7737 P./2013]

THE HIGH COURT

Application to Strike Out - Compliance with Discovery Order - Obligations - Milk producers - Milk Quotas - Breach of contract - Injunctions - Meaning and Interpretation-

Facts: This was an application by the plaintiff to strike out the first defendant"s defence for failing to make discovery or for an order for further and better discovery. The plaintiff and first defendant were both milk producers in Co. Donegal. The plaintiff alleged the defendant unlawfully induced one of their milk producer farmers, namely Mr Ramsey (second defendant) to change to the first defendant by offering him extra milk quota. The plaintiff sought injunctions and claimed damages for inducing breach of contract and other wrongs in tort and contract law. The plaintiff obtained an order for discovery of documents and the dispute came before the Court as to whether the first defendant complied with a category of the Order for Discovery. The first defendant claimed to have fully complied with the orders. The plaintiff sought an extensive list of documents. The first defendant did not deny that such documents existed but asserted they were not within Category 4 of the order. Mr Justice Ryan identified issues to be considered such as the meaning of Category 4 of the order, whether the first defendant complied and if not whether it did so deliberately and as to the appropriate relief/remedy or sanction. Mr Justice Ryan also referred to the rules applying to milk quotas. Affidavits were put before the court by the plaintiffs and the first defendant by instructing Solicitors, expert witnesses and employee in regards to the issue of discovery and as to the interpretation and meaning of Category 4. The plaintiff submitted the first defendant made milk quotas available to farmers in situations where it was not entitled, to entice them to breach their contracts with the plaintiff and that the first defendant avoided making discovery by using a strict interpretation of the orders of the Court on two separate occasions. The plaintiff also submitted any subsequent trial would be unfair because of the first defendant"s lack of compliance with the two discovery orders and that Category 4 applied as the documents provided evidence of transfers of quotas, which the plaintiff asserted formed part of the system used by the first defendant to re-distribute quota belonging to suppliers for their own financial gain. The plaintiff submitted certain conditions must be satisfied for a farmer to sell his quota, such as evidence of compliance with quota deliveries, that the first defendant must have had these records as it could not lawfully operate the distribution of the quota without same and that the relevance of the documents sought cannot be argued. The plaintiff further argued they would be prejudiced in prosecuting their claim without the documentation of the defendants" regarding the Milk Quota Regulations. The defendant made submissions that the plaintiff did not understand the extent and boundary of the discovery, that the documents sought by the plaintiff were not relevant nor fell into Category 4, that the application for further and better discovery should be dismissed and that it has not tried to conceal the documents from the plaintiff.

Held by Mr Justice Ryan the dispute before the Court was the meaning of Category 4 of the discovery order, that the plaintiff was misdirected in its" attack of the defendant, that the plaintiff"s belief of the obligation required in Category 4 was misconceived and that the plaintiff"s motion failed. Mr Justice Ryan further held had he ruled that the plaintiff was in fact correct in its" understanding of the discovery obligation, he would not have struck out the defendant"s defence and would have ordered further and better discovery.

Motion failed

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2008 SI 227/2008

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2008 SI 227/2008 ANNEX 2

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2008 SI 227/2008 ANNEX 1

RSC O.31 r21

CAMPION v WAT UNREP RYAN 8.2.2013 2013 IEHC 45

COMPAGNIE FINANCIÈRE ET COMMERCIALE DU PACIFIQUE v PERUVIAN GUANO CO 1882 11 QBD 55

AER RIANTA CPT v RYANAIR LTD 2001 4 IR 607 2002 1 ILRM 381 2001/1/68

MERCANTILE CREDIT CO (IRL) LTD v HEELAN 1998 1 IR 81 1995/4/1150

JOHNSTON v CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY & ORS UNREP 7.11.2001 2001/12/3513

MURPHY v J DONOGHUE LTD & ORS 1996 1 IR 123 1996 1 ILRM 481 1995 2 ILRM 509 1995/10/2912

W (M) v W (D) 2000 1 ILRM 416 2002 FAM LJ 35 1999/25/7994

TELEFONICA O2 IRELAND LTD v CMSN FOR COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION & ORS UNREP CLARKE 30.6.2011 2011 IEHC 265

THEMA INTERNATIONAL FUND PLC v HSBC INSTITUTIONAL TRUST SERVICES (IRL) & ORS UNREP CLARKE 17.10.2010 2011/47/13339 2011 IEHC 496

STERLING-WINTHROP GROUP LTD v FARBENFABRIKEN BAYER AKTIENGESTELLSCHAFT 1967 IR 97

FRAMUS LTD & ORS v CRH PLC & ORS 2004 2 IR 20 2004 2 ILRM 439 2004/18/4116 2004 IESC 25

DUNNES STORES (ILAC CENTRE) LTD v IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC & O'REILLY 2010 4 IR 1 2009 27 ILT 156 2008/16/3334 2008 IEHC 114

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2008 SI 227/2008 REG 22

1 JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Ryan delivered on the 4th April, 2014

2 This is an application by the plaintiff to strike out the defence of the first defendant for failure to make discovery or, in the alternative, for an order for further and better discovery to comply with orders of this Court.

1. Background

3 Green Pastures and Aurivo are milk producers in Co. Donegal. The plaintiff is an unlimited company in a relatively modest way of business with a small number of farmer suppliers under contract. The first defendant, Aurivo, is a major milk producer in the State and operates in Co. Donegal and surrounding areas; it is a farmers' Co-op which has a large number of farmer milk suppliers associated with it by contract. The second defendant, Mr Ramsey, is a fanner and milk supplier.

4 The plaintiff's case is that the first defendant unlawfully induced Mr Ramsey, one of their milk producer farmers, to change over to Aurivo by offering him extra milk quota. They allege that this was a policy adopted by the first defendant to take clients from rival milk suppliers. The plaintiff seeks injunctions and claims damages for inducing breach of contract and other wrongs in tort and contract law. In the course of the proceedings, it obtained an order for discovery of documents and the dispute now before the Court is whether the first defendant has complied with it in respect of one category of the Order for Discovery. Category 4 is the matter of controversy. It says:-

"All documents, howsoever described, referring to, disclosing or evidencing the methods used and/or systems employed by the first defendant when determining the allocation of any excess milk quota to milk suppliers, including, but not limited to documents referring to any additional quota which may be allocated to the second defendant."

5 The discovery process began with a letter of the 5th September, 2013 in which the plaintiff sought voluntary discovery in respect of six categories of documents. Aurivo agreed to make discovery of four of the six categories. On the 21 ^st October, 2013, Birmingham J. in this Court directed discovery of the two disputed categories, one of which was Category 4. In purported compliance, the first defendant swore affidavits of discovery on the 30 ^th October, 2013, and on the 15 ^th January, 2014, and copies of the documents were furnished. The plaintiff considered that the discovery was deficient and following correspondence, issued another motion seeking an order striking out the defence or alternatively directing full and proper discovery. That matter came before me on the 24 ^th January, 2014. Following a half day's hearing, I gave an ex tempore judgment in which I directed further and better discovery. Aurivo had interpreted the order of Birmingham J. as referring to the allocation of a specific category of quota. It seemed to me that Category 4 comprised documents relating to any excess or extra quota that the first defendant was able to distribute or allocate to a supplier/farmer. The first defendant made further discovery on the 29 ^th January, 2014, in light of my ruling. This motion concerns the further discovery that was made and Green Pastures complains that this discovery is also inadequate and non-compliant with my order and that of Birmingham J.

6 Aurivo claims to have complied fully with the orders. It has discovered a small number of documents and furnished the plaintiff with copies. The plaintiff seeks a much more extensive list of documents and the defendant does not deny that such documents exist but it says that they are not within Category 4.

7 Green Pastures claims that the first defendant has acted in blatant, deliberate disrespect of the order by adopting a meaning that is so narrow as to deprive the category of any practical effect. The plaintiff accordingly seeks to have Aurivo's defence struck out or an order for further and better discovery to give effect to the plaintiff's understanding of the meaning of Category 4.

8 The issues that arise on this motion are first, the meaning of Category 4 of the order and specifically whether the first defendant has complied with it; secondly, if the defendant has failed to comply, whether it did so deliberately with intent to evade its discovery obligation; thirdly, if so, what relief or remedy or sanction is appropriate?

9 Before referring to the debate in the affidavits, it is necessary to refer to the rules applying to milk quotas. The references in the...