O'Leary and Others v Minister for Industry and Commerce and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 04 October 1966
• Date: 04 October 1966

(S.C.)

O'Leary and Others

and

Minister for Industry and Commerce and Others

Defendant a Minister of State - Defendant claiming to be entitled to resist further discovery on ground of public interest - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945, s. 33 (2).

The third-named defendant, in the course of the execution of a hydro-electric scheme, submerged a bridge in the neighbourhood of the plaintiffs lands pursuant to powers conferred by the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945, and thereupon became bound under the Act by a duty to construct a suitable new bridge, unless relieved from such duty by an order made by the first-named defendant. The first-named defendant was authorised by s. 33 (2) of the Act to make such relieving order where he was satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, a new bridge was not required. The first-named defendant was also authorised to give effect to a suggested amendment of the scheme by making an order approving the amendment if he thought it proper. The first-named defendant made two orders, the first of which amended the scheme by deleting therefrom the requirement that the public road over the bridge should be diverted to another point, and the second of which relieved the third-named defendant from the duty to construct a suitable new bridge. In an action instituted by the plaintiffs, claiming declarations that the two orders were null and void and that the third-named defendant was bound to construct a new road and bridge, the parties made discovery of documents. The powers, duties and obligations of the first-named defendant under the statute became vested in the second-named defendant before the commencement of the action. The plaintiffs applied for an order compelling the defendants to make further and better discovery and to produce the documents disclosed. The second-named defendant submitted that further discovery by him was against the public interest. Held by Budd J.: 1. That, as the responsible Minister of State had duly claimed to be entitled to resist making further discovery on the ground of the public interest, his statement must be taken to be conclusive on the matter. Duncanv....