Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Garda successfully challenges claim for public interest privilege but fails to challenge legal advice and litigation privilege claim
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in proceedings relating to bullying and harassment that occurred during the plaintiff's employment as a member of An Garda Siochána, considers the plaintiff's challenge against the defendant's claim of privilege in respect of documents sought to be discovered, and finds that: (a) the claim of public interest privilege in respect of certain items was not established and, as a result, the plaintiff is entitled to sight of these documents; and (b) the claim of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege in respect of the other documents is established and the plaintiff is not entitled to sight of these documents.
Plaintiff former Garda - issued proceedings relating to bullying and harassment claim - main issue is whether defendants can claim legal advice privilege, litigation privilege and public interest privilege - discovery order dated May 2017 - defendants required to make discovery - documents relating to employment contract, safety procedures, code of practice, plaintiff's personal disciplinary file, all pulse entries, bullying and harassment investigations, complaints, disciplinary reviews, plaintiff's transfers from station to station - affidavit of discovery sworn with 1184 total documents - plaintiff argues that affidavit of discovery and supplemental affidavit are deficient in detail - and fail to establish a reasonable basis for privilege - court ultimately satisfied that sufficient detail had been provided - leading authority for legal advice privilege is Smurfit Paribas Ltd v AAB- test for litigation privilege in Silver Hill Duckling v Min Agriculture - Ambiorix Ltd v Min Environment for public interest privilege - court ultimately finds that the defendants claim in relation to legal advice privilege and litigation privilege is established and plaintiff not entitled to see documents 1-72 - however the defendants claim for public interest privilege in relation to documents 73-89 is not established and plaintiff entitled to see documents.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
