Swords v Western Proteins Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Frederick Morris
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 204
• Docket Number: [1998 No. 405P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 29 November 2000

[2000] IEHC 204

THE HIGH COURT

No. 405P/1998

SWORDS v. WESTERN PROTEINS LTD

BETWEEN

MICHAEL SWORDS

Plaintiff

And

WESTERN PROTEINS LIMITED

Defendants

Citations:

RULES OF SUPERIOR COURTS (NO 2) (DISCOVERY) 1999 SI 233/1999

RSC O.31 r12(4)

RSC O.31 r12(2)

RSC O.31 r12(4)(1)

Synopsis

Practice and Procedure

Practice and Procedure; discovery; appeal from order of Master to make discovery within six weeks; plaintiff's solicitors had written asking for discovery of a class of documents; defendant had responded stating that letter did not state precise nature of the documents required and the reason for which they were required; motion for discovery had been initiated by plaintiffs based on affidavit sworn by plaintiff's solicitors; Master had adjourned case for the purpose of allowing plaintiff's solicitors to file a supplemental affidavit; whether plaintiff's solicitor's letter had properly identified category of documents and reasons required pursuant to SI 223 of 1999; whether within jurisdiction of Master to give plaintiff an opportunity to file a supplemental affidavit to enable him to comply with the Rules of Court; whether Master had jurisdiction to adjourn matter for purpose of filing supplemental affidavit.

Held: Application refused.

Swords v. Western Proteins Limited - High Court: Morris P. - 29/11/2000 - [2001] 1 IR 324 - [2001] 1 ILRM 481

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Frederick Morrisdelivered on the 29th day of November 2000

2 This matter comes before the Court as an appeal from an Order of the Master made on the 19th May 2000 whereby he ordered that the Defendants within six weeks make Discovery on oath of inter alia

3 (4) .........Accident report form and all documents relating to the reporting and investigation of the accident in which the Plaintiff was involved up to the 1st October 1997 when the Defendant was made aware of the Plaintiff's intention to bring legal proceedings arising out of the accident

4 The facts which are being alleged by the Plaintiff which give rise to this accident, insofar as is necessary to refer to them in this Application, are as follows: The Plaintiff claims that he was in the employment of the Defendants on the 8th July 1997 at their meat processing plant in Ballyhaunis, Co. Mayo.

5 He alleges that through the Defendant's negligence and breach of duty boiling matter and fat were caused or permitted to escape from a control gate in the ancillary pipe work in the premises which caused him to suffer serious burns and he claims damages for the personal injuries and loss which he sustained.

6 As the pre application correspondence in Discovery Motions is of importance it is necessary to set out this correspondence in somedetail.

7 By letter of the 29th November 1999 the Plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the Defendant's solicitors asking them to make discovery of certain classes of documents. The relevant part of this letter is asfollows:

8 Re: Michael Swords v Western Proteins Limited, the High Court 1998 No. 405P.

9 Dear Sirs,

10 ..............The discovery which we require from your client is limited to the question of liability. We require discovery of all documents in your client's possession which touch on in any way the issue of liability in this case and without prejudice to the generality of that request we require in particular thefollowing;

11 2 "(1) .........

12 (2) ...........

13 (3) ...........

14 (4) Accident report book/record details."

15 By letter of the 7th February 2000 the Defendant's solicitors replied in the following terms:

16 Re: Michael Swords v Western Proteins Limited - The High Court 1998 No. 405P

17 Dear Sirs,

18 We refer to your letter of the 29th November 1999 seeking Discovery of certain documentation and would like to point out that the Master of the High Court has indicated that he is not prepared to make orders for discovery herein unless the person seeking the Dscovery has outlined, not only the precise nature of the documents he or she requires but the reasons he or she requires them. Accordingly any application for Discovery brought by you in this regard will beresisted.

19 Yours faithfully,

20 The solicitor for the Plaintiffs replied to that letter in the followingterms:

21 Re: Michael Swords v Western Proteins Limited - the High Court 1998 No. 405P.

22 Dear Sirs,

23 We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 7th inst., in relation to this matter. I note your refusal to make Discovery of the documents sought in our letter of the 29th November, We would have assumed that the reason why we required Discovery of these documents was self evident. Liability remains an issue in this case and obviously the documents which we have sought would assist both the Plaintiff and the court in seeking to determine the liability issue.

24 In any event we are now preparing the appropriate application to the court for an Order for Discovery.

25 ..................

26 ....................

27 Yours faithfully,

28 The Motion for Discovery was dated the 9th June 2000 and was based upon an Affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff's solicitors on the 10th March 2000 exhibiting the foregoing correspondence. At the hearing the Master adjourned the casefor the purpose of allowing the Plaintiff's solicitors file a Supplemental Affidafit. In this Supplemental Affidafit at paragraph 5(d) the documents sought are identified in the following form.

29 (d) ......... Accident Report Form and all documents relating to the reporting and investigation of the accident in which the Plaintiff was involved from the date of the accident up until the 1st October 1997 when the Defendant was made aware of the Plaintiff's intention to bring legal proceedings arising out of theaccident.

30 The reason for requiring these documents is stated to be:

31 I further say and believe that access to these documents is required to prove the Defendant's state of knowledge at the time and its negligence as particularised in the second, third and fourth paragraph of the Particulars of Negligence. Discovery of these documents is therefore necessary for the fair disposal of the cause at issue between the Parties.

32 Counsel for the Defendant Mr. Clancy BL makes the following submissions objecting to the Order for Discovery and saying that the Master misdirected himself in allowing Discovery of the documents referred to in the latter part of paragraph (4) of his Order of the 19th May2000.

33 Counsel's first submission is that Statutory Instrument 223 of 1999 Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 2) (Discovery) 1999 and in particular subparagraph 4 of Order 31 Rule 12 specifically precludes the court from making...