Promontoria (Aran) Ltd v Archbold

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 136
• Docket Number: 2017 No. 636 S
• Date: 05 March 2019

Between:

PROMONTORIA (ARAN) LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

– AND –

JOHN ARCHBOLD & GERRY WALSH

DEFENDANTS

[2019] IEHC 136

Barrett J.

2017 No. 636 S

THE HIGH COURT

Practice and Procedure – Inspection Order – Order 31 – Plaintiff seeking an inspection order relating to various documents – Whether defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of the requested documents

Facts: The plaintiff sought an order under O.31, r.18 RSC directing the defendant to produce documents for inspection that were relied upon but not exhibited.

Held by Barrett J that the test was whether the defendants had actual knowledge of the existence of the documents. Barrett J made an order for production of only those documents as to which the defendants had expressly averred to their existence.

Relief granted in part and denied in part.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 5th March, 2019.

1 Promontoria seeks an order under O. 31, r.18 RSC directing the defendants to produce for inspection certain documents relied upon in, but not exhibited to, an affidavit sworn for the defendants in these proceedings (the “Affidavit”). As Barron J. observes in Holloway v. Belenos Publications Ltd (No 2) [1988] IR 494, 496, ‘[T] he essence of an order for inspection is knowledge of the existence of the documents to be inspected’. That is a high threshold: supposition/inference does not suffice; actual knowledge of actual existence is necessary for an inspection order to issue. The defendants claim that if one looks to the Affidavit and brings Holloway to bear, the plaintiff does not...