Applications for discovery against NAMA and Minister for Finance refused

Discovery – husband and wife seeking discovery from NAMA and Minister for Finance – husband’s business involved the purchase and development of property - took out 18 separate loan facilities with the Irish Nationwide Building Society secured by mortgages on 8 properties – included their principal residence - loans and ‘bank assets’ were acquired by NAMA - IBRC assumed management of the loan portfolio – claimed cumulative arrears of €734,538.34 had built up on eight loan accounts - demanded repayment of the sum of €32,131,530.21 – statutory receivers appointed - no enforcement action against their residence to date – proceedings issued – counter claim of summary judgment - damages for breach of their constitutional rights and ECHR rights, negligence, breach of duty, various sections of the NAMA Act are incompatible with the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights - seek to impugn as unlawful the decision of IBRC to reject the husband’s business plan – failed to properly consider either the disposal of the loan portfolio or the adoption of an alternative management strategy – claim that the Minister has unlawfully interfered with the independence of NAMA - 31 categories of documents sought in their two motions – engagement between parties – voluntary discovery – motion struck out – dispute as to agreement – dissatisfied with the discovery received – issued further motion – no letter seeking voluntary discovery – 19 categories – NAMA agreed to make discovery in 17 – 2 categories in dispute – principles that govern the discovery of documents – relevant and necessary – seeking: all documents relating to NAMA’s strategy for early disposal - arguments on relevance and necessity are consistently directed more towards the evidence that has been put on affidavit for the trial of the action, than to the issues identified in the pleadings – no reference in pleadings relied upon to strategy for early disposal – category is not relevant – category is not necessary – next category in dispute corresponds directly to categories sought in motion that was struck out – NAMA did not offer to discover these documents – res judicata – abuse of process - it would amount to an abuse of process to permit the husband and wife to apply again for discovery of precisely the same categories of discovery as were the subject of an earlier discovery application, struck out on consent after agreement had been reached on the discovery that was to be made - create the spectre of a multiplicity of applications concerning the same issue or issues in this case and in other cases – husband and wife sought 6 categories from the Minister for Finance – claimed that discovery necessary to prosecute claim that the State pursued several unlawful objectives – Court determined that the category is not relevant – expressly admitted by Minister in defence that communication took place – official record of parliamentary debates referred to – Court determined that the husband and wife sought discovery of public documents – husband and wife failed to raise a factual issue of sufficient substance, or adduced evidence which grounds a reasonable suspicion of unlawfulness, such that the application cannot be fairly resolved without discovery – sought discovery to substantiate claim that the Minister has unlawfully interfered with the independence of NAMA by purporting to give certain commitments to the Troika regarding NAMA bond redemption targets – express admission by Minister – discovery refused – husband and wife failed to link category to pleading – request for discovery concerned issues of law and not a controversy as to fact – entirety of husband and wife’s requests for discovery refused.