Silver Hill Duckling Ltd and Steele v Minister for Agriculture

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 1761
• Date: 01 January 1987
• Docket Number: [1984 No. 4847P]
• Court: High Court

SILVER HILL DUCKLING LTD v. MIN AGRICULTURE

BETWEEN

SILVER HILL DUCKLING LIMITED RONALD STUART STEELEELIZABETH PATRICIA STEELE

Plaintiffs

AND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEYGENERAL

Defendants

1986 WJSC-HC 1761

1984 No. 4847P

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

MINISTER OF STATE

Discovery

Privilege - Legal professional privilege - Scope of privilege - Point of time for commencement of privilege - ~See~ Practice, documents - (1984/4847 P - O'Hanlon J. - 31/10/86) - [1987] ILRM 516

|Silver Hill Duckling v. Minister for Agriculture|

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Privilege - Legal professional privilege - Scope of privilege - Point of time for commencement of privilege - Plaintiff's motion for further and better discovery - Defendant's claim to privilege concerning documents made "in contemplation of and for the purposes of advising the Minister and his officers in relation to the plaintiff's claim herein, and of being documents of a confidential nature relating to the European Community" - Plaintiff claimed payment of statutory compensation for slaughter of its poultry which had been infected with fowl pest - Outbreak of fowl pest at end of 1983 - Slaughter of poultry between December, 1983, and 13th February, 1984 - On 26/3/84 defendant Minister received from plaintiff a letter claiming compensation greatly in excess of the amount previously assessed as appropriate by the Minister - Held that the defendant Minister was entitled to claim legal professional privilege in relation to documents which had been created, after the litigation had been apprehended or threatened, in the course of the Minister's investigations undertaken for the dominant purpose of his preparations for the apprehended litigation - Held that such privilege extended to communications between the defendant Minister and persons other than his legal advisers - Held that such privilege applied to documents created after 26/3/84 - Held that the defendant Minister was not entitled to claim privilege in relation to the production of documents containing minutes of the meetings of the Standing Veterinary Committee of the E.E.C. recording discussions about the outbreak of avian influenza in Ireland - Held that no issue of public interest had been established by the defendant Minister - (1984/4847 P - O'Hanlon J. - 31/10/86) - [1987] IR 289 [1987] ILRM 516

|Silver Hill Duckling v. Minister for Agriculture|

Citations:

CROMPTON V CUSTOMS & EXCISE COMMISSIONERS 1971 2 AER 378

CROMPTON V CUSTOMS & EXCISE COMMISSIONERS 1973 2 AER 1169

GERAGHTY V MIN LOCAL GOVT 1975 IR 300

MURPHY V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1972 IR 215, 107 ILTR 65

WAUGH V BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD 1980 AC 521, 1979 3 WLR 150, 1979 2 AER 1169

1 Judgment delivered by O'Hanlon J., the 31st October,1986

2 An Order for discovery of documents was made in these proceedings by the Master of the High Court on the 11th October, 1985, and an affidavit of discovery was sworn on behalf of the Defendants on the 3rd Fiarch, 1986, by Michael Cronin, a Civil Servant employed in the Department ofAgriculture.

3 In paragraph 3 of that affidavit Mr. Cronin claims privilege in respect of certain documents on the following basis:

"3 I object to producing the documents set forth in the Second Part of the First Schedule hereto on the grounds that the said documents are privileged being docuitients made in contemplation of and for the purposes of advising the Canister and his officers in relation to thePlaintiffs" claim herein and of being documents of a confidential nature relating to the European Community."

4 The Plaintiffs are not satisfied that the Defendants have made full and proper discovery of documents as required by law, in compliance with the Order already made, and now apply for an Order directing and compelling the Defendants to make further and better discovery for the purpose of making good certain omissions.

5 The application is grounded upon an affidavit of the second named Plaintiff, sworn on the 7th July, 1986, in which it is claimed in the first place that the claim of privilege referred to in paragraph 3 of the original affidavit of discovery is not well-founded, and in the second place reference is made in Paragraphs 4 to 14 (inclusive) of Mr. Steele's affidavit to other relevant documents which he believes came into existence and which are or have been within the Defendants"power or procurement and which have not been discovered.

6 Dealing first with the claim of privilege, I agree with the contention of the Plaintiffs that privilege is claimed on too wide a basis in paragraph 3 of Mr. Cronin's affidavit. It appears to represent an effort to claim privilege on two separate grounds known to the law, neither of which is clearly identified by the deponent - one ground being what is commonly referred to as legal professional privilege, and the other being the ground that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the documents in respect of which privilege is claimed.

7 I have considered the Defendants" claim of privilege under both of the said headings and I have inspected the file of documents which has been made available to the Court by the Defendants which, apparently, contains all documents in respect of which privilege is claimed under these headings.

8 Dealing first with the claim to legal professional privilege, I am satisfied that a sustainable claim under this heading may be made in respect of a wider category of...