Hannon v Commissioner of Public Works and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice McCracken
Judgment Date04 April 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] IEHC 59
CourtHigh Court
Date04 April 2001
HANNON v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS & ORS

BETWEEN

PATRICK HANNON
PLAINTIFF

AND

THE COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS, THE MINISTER FORFINANCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDANTS

[2001] IEHC 59

No. 8347P/1998

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Practice and procedure; motion for further and better discovery; claim for declaratory, injunctive relief and damages for personal injury allegedly due to defendant's negligence, breach of duty, breach of statutory duty, breach of contract and breach of plaintiff's constitutional rights; whether, as a matter of probability, a particular document is relevant to issues to be tried; whether discovery of documents oppressive; Or. 31, r. 12, Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986;

Held: Allowed further discovery of certain documents.

Hannon v. Commissioners of Public Works - High Court: McCracken J. - 04/04/2001

The application was one for further and better discovery. The proceedings themselves centred around a dispute the plaintiff had with his employers. McCracken J held that some of the documents sought should be discovered and made the appropriate order.

Citations:

COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE ET COMMERCIALE DU PACIFIQUE V PERUVIAN GUANO COMPANY 1882 11 QBD 55

BULA LIMITED V CROWLEY 1991 1 IR 220

RSC O.31 r12

1

Mr. Justice McCrackendelivered the 4th day of April 2001

2

These are proceedings in which the Plaintiff, who is an engineer employed by the first Defendant, seeks a number of declaratory and injuctive relief's arising out of the hearing of certain grievances and complaints of the Plaintiff by the first Defendant pursuant to the grievance procedures in place. In addition, the Plaintiff is alsoclaiming:-

"Damages for personal injury, loss and damage, sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the negligence, breach of duty (including statutory duty), breach of contract and breach of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights by the Defendants, their servants or agents and damages for the reckless and wilful infliction of emotional suffering and stress."

3

The Plaintiff sought certain interlocutory relief which was refused, but by Order dated 12th October, 1998 Kelly J. ordered that the Defendants do within four weeks of the close of pleadings make discovery on oath of the documents which are or having being in their possession or power relating to the matters in question in the action. Discovery has been made by the Defendants, and I am informed that over 3,500 documents have been discovered.This is a motion for further and better discovery of a large number of further documents as set out in the Affidavit of Eric Bradshaw, the Plaintiff's solicitor.

4

It is accepted by both parties that the principles set out in the long standing decision of Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique -v- Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 are still applicable. In that case Brett L.J. said:-

"The documents to be produced are not confined to those which would be evidence either to prove or to disprove any matter in question in the action .... It seems to me that every document relating to the matters in question in the action which not only would be evidence upon any issue but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may - not which must - either directly or indirectly enable th party requiring the Affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary .... The question must be whether from the description either in the first Affidavit itself or in the list of documents referred to in the first Affidavit or in the pleadings of the action there are still documents in the possession of the party making the first Affidavit, it is not unreasonable to suppose, do contain information which may, either directly or indirectly, enable the party requiring a further Affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. In order to determine whether certain documents are within that description, it is necessary to consider what other questions arise in the action; the Court must look, not only at the Statement of Claim on the Plaintiffs case, but also at the Statement of Defence and the Defendants case."

5

This was a case which dealt generally with what documents ought to be produced on discovery. There have been several more recent cases which have dealt with theposition where an Affidavit of discovery has been sworn, in which the Deponent swears that there are no other relevant documents, and the party seeking discovery maintains there are further documents. A prime example of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Lawless v Aer Lingus Group Plc
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 29 July 2016
    ...the approach of the court on an application for discovery is the decision of McCracken J. in Hanna v. Commissioners of Public Works [2001] IEHC 59 where he emphasised that 'relevance' must be determined in relation to the pleadings in the specific case and not by submissions as to alleged ......
  • Goode Concrete v CRH Plc
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 19 February 2020
    ...necessary to issues in the proceedings. Relevance is determined by reference to the pleadings: Hannon v. Commissioners of Public Works [2001] IEHC 59; Tobin v. Minister for Defence [2018] IECA 230. However, a requesting party cannot rely on a mere allegation or bare assertions to establis......
  • Hire Services Ltd (E) v an Post
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 June 2018
    ...that case, having referred to a number of the leading cases on discovery in Ireland, including Hannon v. Commissioners of Public Works [2001] IEHC 59, Framus Ltd v. CRH Plc [2004] 2 IR 20, Ryanair Plc v. Aer Rianta CPT [2003] 4 IR 264 and Hartside Ltd v. Heineken Ireland Ltd [2010] IEHC......
  • Allergan Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v Noel Deane Roofing and Cladding Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 August 2006
    ...(DISCOVERY) 1999 SI 233/1999 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 HANNON v COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS UNREP MCCRACKEN 4.4.2001 2001/11/3168 2001 IEHC 59 MCCARTHY v O'FLYNN 1979 IR 127 ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC v ERNST & WHINNEY 1993 1 IR 375 RSC O.31 r12(1) RSC O.31 r12(3) RSC O.31 r12(4) DERB......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Loan Portfolio Price A Relevant Factor In Irish Unjust Enrichment Claim
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 7 May 2020
    ...or indirectly" enable the borrower to advance his defence. Haughton J cited the decision in Hannon v Commissioner for Public Works ([2001] IEHC 59), in which it was stated that "the court must decide as a matter of probability as to whether any particular document is relevant to the issues ......

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