Greene v Instruelec Services Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McKechnie J.,
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IEHC 82
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 6640P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 February 2001

[2001] IEHC 82

THE HIGH COURT

No. 6640p/1994

BRIAN GREENE & CO t/a HOTEL GREENHILLS v. INSTRUELEC SERVICES LTD & ORS

BETWEEN

BRIAN GREENE & CO LIMITED TRADING AS HOTELGREENHILLS

PLAINTIFF

AND

INSTRUELEC SERVICES LIMITED NOEL LAWLOR AND BY ORDERGERRY BROUDER TRADING AS GERRY BROUDER AND ASSOCIATES

DEFENDANTS

1 McKechnie J.,19th February 2001

2 This is the Plaintiff's Motion wherein, as against the Defendant he seeks Discovery of certain documents. The Application is moved under Order 31 Rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Master Hill declined jurisdiction to hear the Motion pursuant to this Rule. He did so on the basis that the letter seeking voluntary discovery was insufficiently precise, and citing the decision of the learned President of the High Court in Swords -v- WesternProteins, H.C. U/R 29/11/00, held, that he, the Master, had no jurisdiction to embark upon the Motion. This notwithstanding the fact that there was consent between the parties.

3 S.I. 233 of 1999 amended the High Court Rules on Discovery by introducing a new Rule 12 in Order 31 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The relevant portion of the 12 is sub-rule (4)(I) which, in its entirety, reads as follows:-

"(4)(I) An Order under sub-rule I directing any party or under rule 29 directing any other person to make discovery shall not be madeunless: "

(a) the applicant for same shall have previously applied by letter in writing requesting that discovery be made voluntarily, specifying the precise categories of documents in respect of which discovery is sought and furnishing the reasons why each category of documents is required to be discovered; and

(b) a reasonable period of time for such discovery has been allowed; and

(c) the party or person requested has failed, refused or neglected to make such discovery or has ignored such request.

4 Provided that in any case where by reason of the urgency of the matter or consent of the parties, the nature of the case or any other circumstances which to the Court seem appropriate, the Court may make such order as appears proper, without the necessity for such prior application in writing".

5 Apart from the Swords decision there is not, to my knowledge, any other case which has examined the meaning and applicability of this particular sub-rule. Having read that judgment it is clear, on the relevant facts as presented, that the learned President was not required to consider...