Megaleasing UK Ltd v Barrett

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCarthy J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1991 WJSC-SC 2142
• Docket Number: Defendants [S.C. No. 160 of 1991]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 16 May 1991

(S.C.)

Megaleasing U.K. Ltd

and

Barrett (No. 2)

Person innocently becoming involved in tortious acts of others -Whether under a duty to give full information by way of discovery - Sole remedy sought is discovery - Whether sufficiently clear proof of wrongdoing - Whether appropriate to make order.

The first and second named plaintiffs were incorporated in England, the third in France. All were part of a group of companies wholly owned by an American corporation carrying on a multinational trade in computer equipment and accessories. The plaintiffs alleged that in the years 1989 and 1990 four invoices were raised by some of the defendants against Megaleasing UK Ltd. and were authorised for payment by servants or agents of Megaleasing UK Ltd. and were paid. The plaintiffs claimed that no satisfactory explanation of any value for goods or services provided by the defendants to whom those payments were made could be found on investigation in the affairs of Megaleasing UK Ltd. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, including those who actually raised the invoices and others who were concerned with the transactions involved had either wittingly or unwittingly become involved in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate the wrongdoing of wrongdoers and were therefore under a duty to assist the plaintiffs as the entities who had been wronged by giving the plaintiffs full information in relation to the events surrounding the wrongdoing, so as to enable the plaintiffs to proceed against the wrongdoers. The plaintiffs issued a plenary summons claiming orders of discovery. The order for discovery sought and granted by Costello J, in the High Court against the defendants included the disclosure of full details of all facts and matters of information within their knowledge concerning four invoices. The defendants appealed. Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., McCarthy and O'Flaherty JJ.; Hederman and Egan JJ, concurring) in allowing the defendants' appeal, 1, the granting of an order for discovery in an action for sole discovery prior to the institution of proceedings against any defendant is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used. 2. The remedy should be confined to cases where a very clear proof of a wrongdoing exists and possibly, so far as applies to an action for discovery alone prior to the institution of any other proceedings, to cases where what is really sought are the names and identity of the wrongdoers rather than factual information concerning the commission of the wrong.

1991 WJSC-SC 2142

THE SUPREME COURT

McCarthy J.

O'Flaherty J.

Egan J.

(160/1991)

MEGALEASING (UK) LTD v. BARRETT & ORS

BETWEEN

MEGALEASING U.K. LIMITED, MEGALEASING HOLDINGS LIMITED AND QUANTUM DATA S.A.

PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

AND

(1) VINCENT BARRETT (2) V.F.J. BARRETT & ASSOCIATES (3) MOSETTA (4) JACQUES TOULORGE (5) BEAT CORPATAUX (6) MAURICE CLIFFORD (7) MICHAEL BEHAN (8) BERRUTI LIMITED (9) REXCO LIMITED (10) ANSBACHER AND COMPANY LIMITED

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

Citations:

NORWICH PHARMACAL CO & ORS V CUSTOM & EXCISE COMMISSIONERS 1974 AC 133

ORR V DIAPER 4 CH D 92

INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1974 IR 373

Synopsis:

ORDER

Enforcement

Stay - Supreme Court - Appeal - Predetermination - Plenary summons - Plaintiff claimed entitlement to information - Defendant directed by High Court to furnish information - Determination of substantive issue in action - Stay granted pending determination of appeal - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 58, r. 18 - (160/91 - Supreme Court -...