Greencore Group Plc v Murphy

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKeane J.
Judgment Date01 January 1996
Neutral Citation1995 WJSC-HC 4642
Docket Number5843p/1995,[1995 No. 5843P]
CourtHigh Court
Date01 January 1996

1995 WJSC-HC 4642

THE HIGH COURT

5843p/1995
617sp Ct 5/1991
GREENCORE GROUP PLC v. MURPHY

BETWEEN

GREENCORE GROUP PLC, IRISH SUGAR PLC, SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS(HOLDINGS) LIMITED, SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, GLADEBROOK COMPANYLIMITED, ISM INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS EXPORTLIMITED
PLAINTIFFS

AND

JOHN J. MURPHY, THOMAS KELEGHAN AND CHARLESLYONS
DEFENDANTS

Citations:

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S14

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S8

RUSH & TOMPKINS LTD V GREATER LONDON COUNCIL 1988 3 AER 737

AMBIORIX LTD V MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1992 1 IR 277

HARMAN V HOME OFFICE 1982 1 AER 532

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Memorandum - Disclosure - Use - Restraint - Ground - Attachment - Contempt of court - Defendant sought discovery of documents by third party - Defendant's affidavit exhibited memorandum already disclosed by claimant in earlier separate action - No privilege claimed for memorandum by such claimant - Production of memorandum opposed by stranger to present action - Admissibility of papers to be decided at trial of action - No contempt of court by defendant - (1995/5843 P - Keane J. - 2/10/95)1995 3 IR 520

|Greencore Group Plc. v. Murphy|

1

JUDGMENT delivered the 2nd day of October, 1995by Keane J.

2

In these proceedings, the Plaintiffs claim an injunction restraining the Defendants, and any person with notice of the making of the order, from committing or attempting to commit a contempt of court by producing to the court in other proceedings certain documents to which I will refer in more detail at a later point. The matter came before me by way of a Notice of Motion claiming the injunctive relief set out in the PlenarySummons.

3

The factual background to these proceedings is as follows. They are the latest in a series of proceedings arising out of the affairs of the second named Plaintiff, Irish Sugar Plc, (hereafter "Irish Sugar") and its various associated companies. In the first of these proceedings, Christopher Comerford -v- John Murphy, Charles Lyons and Thomas Keleghan (hereafter "the Talmino proceedings"), the Plaintiff claims inter alia a declaration that the firstnamed Defendant (who is a solicitor), who had acquired certain shares in a company called Talmino Limited incorporated in the State of Jersey in the Channel Islands, held them in trust for the Plaintiff's adult children. All the shares in Greencore Group Plc, until such time as a flotation took place on the Dublin Stock Exchange as part of the privatisation of Irish Sugar, were owned by the Minister for Finance. Talmino Limited, the ownership of the shares in which were the subject of the Talmino proceedings, was one of the shareholders in Gladebrook Limited, a company which in turn owned forty nine per cent of the shares in Irish Sugar Distributors (Holdings) Limited, the remaining fifty one per cent being held by Irish Sugar. In turn, Irish Sugar Distributors (Holdings) Limited owned all the shares in Sugar Distributors Limited, the company which distributed the sugar products manufactured by its ultimate parent, Irish Sugar.

4

At the time the Talmino proceedings were issued, Mr. Comerford was the chief executive and managing director of Greencore Group Plc. The institution by him of the proceedings was the subject of extensive media publicity and comment and on the

5

4th September, 1991, he resigned his position on the terms set out in an agreement (hereafter "the Comerford severance agreement"). Mr. Michael Tully, who was the group secretary and general manager (finance) of Greencore Group Plc, also resigned his position on the 5th September, 1991 on the terms set out in an agreement (hereafter "the Tully severance agreement").

6

The next development was the appointment by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of an inspector underS. 14 of the Companies Act 1990to investigate and report on the membership of Irish Sugar and its associated companies and the persons effectively in control of these companies. The inspector made his interim report to the Minister on the 22nd October, 1991 and a final report dated the 4th December, 1991. On the 16th September, 1991 the High Court appointed two inspectors under S. 8 of the Companies Act 1990to investigate the affairs of Irish Sugar, and subsequently extended the investigation to other related companies. The inspectors delivered interim reports to the High Court on 7th October, 1991 and 11th November, 1991 and a final report on the 25th February, 1992.

7

Following the delivery of these reports, further sets of proceedings were instituted by Mr. Comerford against Greencore Group Plc. and its related companies claiming specific performance of the Comerford severance agreement and by Greencore Group Plc. and its associated companies against Mr. Comerford claiming recission of that agreement on the ground inter alia that its execution had been procured by misrepresentation. These proceedings are hereafter called "the Greencore proceedings".

8

Similar proceedings were instituted by Mr. Tully against Greencore Group Plc. claiming specific performance of the Tully severance agreement. In addition, Mr. Comerford has issued proceedings against a number of persons alleged to have been directors of Greencore Group Plc. at the relevant times claiming inter alia damages for conspiracy, breach of warranty of authority and malicious falsehood.

9

In both the Greencore proceedings and the Talmino proceedings, Mr. Comerford swore an affidavit of discovery.Among the documents discovered by him are what is described as a contemporaneous note and record of a meeting on the 17th April, 1993 at Mr. Comerford's residence on Ailesbury Road, Dublin 4 between Mr. Comerford and Mr. David Dilger, who at that time was a director and chief operating officer of Greencore Group Plc. He also discovered a document which took the form of notes prepared by him (Mr. Comerford) in advance of that meeting.

10

In the Talmino proceedings, an application for third party discovery has been brought by Mr. Murphy against Greencore. In his defence to the Talmino proceedings, Mr. Murphy alleges that the proceedings were issued by Mr. Comerford maliciously and in bad faith and in order to deter Mr. Murphy from continuing to act as solicitor in proceedings brought by the third named Defendant, Mr, Lyons, against Irish Sugar, in which allegations were made that Mr. Comerford required Mr. Lyons to engage in certain breaches of the competition law of the European Union. In his application for third party discovery against Greencore, Mr. Murphy seeks the production of documents relating to the ownership...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • E. S. v B. S
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 April 2010
    ...LAW ACT 1995 BETWEEN E. S. APPLICANT AND B. S. RESPONDENT FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S5(1) GREENCORE GROUP v MURPHY 1993 3 IR 520 1996 1 ILRM 210 1995/18/4642 AMBIROX v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT (NO 1) 1992 1 IR 227 1992 ILRM 209 W (AM) v W (S) UNREP ABBOTT 18.4.2008 2008/60/12595 2008 IEHC 45......
  • Breslin and Others v McKenna and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 March 2008
    ...1 ILRM 504 BRESLIN & ORS v MCKENNA & ORS 2007 NICA 14 RSC O.3 r22 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 GREENCORE GROUP PLC & ORS v MURPHY & ORS 1995 3 IR 520 1996 1 ILRM 210 1995/18/4642 KELLY v IRELAND 1986 ILRM 318 RSC O.86 r14 RSC O.86 r17 OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACTS 1939 to 1972 SPECIAL CRIM......
  • EH v Information Commissioner
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 April 2001
    ...I.R. 277; [1992] I.L.R.M. 209. Eastern Health Board v. Fitness to Practise Committee [1998] 3 I.R. 399. Greencore Group plc. v. Murphy [1995] 3 I.R. 520; [1996] 1 I.L.R.M. 210. Hoechst Marion Roussel v. Farchepro Ltd. [1999] 3 I.R. 567; [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 321. Home Office v. Harman [1983] 1 ......
  • McKillen v Information Commissioner
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 January 2016
    ...is explained in cases such as Ambiorix Ltd v. Minister for the Environment (No. 1) [1992] 1 I.R. 277 and Greencore Group Plc v. Murphy [1995] 3 I.R. 520. 44 As an alternative to distinguishing EH, the appellant submitted that it was wrongly decided and should not be followed. In this respe......
  • 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