Joseph O'Connor (Nenagh) Ltd v ESB

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: O'Leary J
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] IEHC 154
• Date: 14 July 2004
• Docket Number: HC 273/04

[2004] IEHC 154

THE HIGH COURT

O'Leary J

HC 273/04

1997 NO 5233P

JOSEPH O'CONNOR (NENAGH) LTD v. ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD (ESB)

BETWEEN

JOSEPH O'CONNOR (NENAGH) LTD

Plaintiff

And

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

Defendant

Citations:

MURPHY V DONOHOE 1996 1 IR 123

Abstract:

Practice and procedure - Striking out defence - Discovery - Whether an order striking out the defence for failure to comply with discovery should be discharged when the order for discovery is complied with.

Facts: The Master of the High Court made an order for discovery in February 1999. Subsequently, the master was required to make a further order arising out of a dispute concerning the adequacy of the information discovered. That order of the Master refused an application of the defendants/applicants to extend the time for the filing of a Supplemental Affidavit of Discovery and struck out the defendant’s defence. Consequently, the defendants sought to discharge that order of the Master.

Held by O’Leary J in granting the order sought: 1. That part of the reason for the order striking out the defence was that the defendant had not put the discovery information in the correct form. However, the further affidavit delivered on behalf of the defendant regularised the form of the previous discovery and also added supplemental material, which fell within the ambit of the Masters order. Accordingly, the discovery available to the plaintiff was completed. Consequently, to affirm the order of the Master striking out the defence would be in the nature of a punishment rather than an action necessary for the administration of justice.

Murphy v Donohoe Ltd

I.R. 1 1996 123 followed.

Reporter: L.O’S.

Judgement delivered on the

O'Leary J

1 This is a motion by the Defendants (herein after the Applicants) seeking the discharge of an order made by the Master of the High Court on 16^th July 2002 whereby he

2 (1) Refused an application of the applicants to extend the time for the filing of a Supplemental Affidavit of Discovery and

3 (2) Struck out the defendant's defence.

4 In these proceedings the respondent/plaintiff seeks damages for beach of contract, negligence and other relief as set out in the pleadings herein. The claim arises principally in respect of money allegedly paid by the respondent to the applicant for the building of a sub-station and also in respect of payments made for electricity allegedly supplied to the plaintiff/respondent by the applicant which payments were allegedly made as a result of a mistake of fact as set out in the pleadings.

Facts found

5 The parties exchanged correspondence concerning discovery, which culminated in an order of the Master dated 12^th February 1999. This order set out the discovery considered by the Master to be necessary for the proper hearing of the case based on the information then available to the Master. This Order remains the basis of...