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.
Additional discovery refused in case involving alleged misfeasance in public office
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses applicant's motion seeking additional and further and better discovery in a case involving alleged misfeasance in public office, on the grounds that: (a) the correct procedure for further and better discovery was not followed; (b) it wasn't established that the material was required to be discovered but wasn't; (c) the appellant hadn't demonstrated that the defendant misunderstood what the issues were; (d) the defendant did not have an incorrect understanding that the documents were outside their discovery obligations; and (e) it wasn't demonstrated that there were further relevant documents within defendant's procurement.
High Court - discovery - Rules of the Superior Courts - Order 31, rule 12(11) - application to vary terms of order of discovery - alleged Department of Finance gained access to confidential information as they took over loans owned by the first named defendant - alleged contact between defendants and Barclays Interests constituted misfeasance in public office and/or an abuse of process - 11th September, 2020 - discovery order - Allen J. - Rules of the Superior Courts - Order 31, rule 12(11) - application to vary terms of order of discovery - mandatory language - 10th March, 2022 - appellant's letter asked for compliance - 12th April, 2022 - respondent replied - 2nd May, 2022 - appellant contacted respondent - 3rd May, 2022 - appellant issued motion - respondent not given reasonable time to respond - procedure not followed - further and better discovery can't be granted - further and better discovery - one of number of factors must be complied with - documents required to be discovered but not - misunderstanding as to what the issues are - wrong understanding they were outside discovery obligations - relevant documents within defendant's procurement before discovery granted - needs to be suspicion of default before order made - Allen J. order reflects a narrowing down of issues from initial discovery letter - factors not fulfilled - category (i) - correspondence between fourth and fifth named defendants and Barclays Interests concerning plaintiff's IBRC loans - application dismissed in relation to - category (ii) - all correspondence fourth named defendant and the Department of Finance made with IBRC relating to the plaintiff between 1st July, 2011 and 6th February, 2013 - dismissed in same terms - appellant seeking another affidavit to be sworn to resolve issues in Schedule 3 - application dismissed - title of proceedings amended to reflect some change in parties.
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.
