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.
Non-party discovery ordered in defamation proceedings
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court makes an order for non-party discovery against two non-parties in an action for defamation, on the grounds that: (a) the categories of documents sought were patently relevant to the issues raised by the plea of truth, and it was clear that the non-parties were the only remaining sources for the documentation sought; (b) the Court was satisfied that the scope of the discovery was not so broad as would render compliance with the terms of the orders sought onerous to the point of being oppressive and that the categories of documents did not amount to a fishing exercise; (c) the balancing exercise between the public interest in the administration of justice and the prevention of crime weighed in favour of ordering discovery; (d) the Court was satisfied that an Garda Síochána’s role in the prevention of crime and its interest in the confidentiality of sources did not militate against making an order for discovery.
Two applications brought by the defendant for non-party discovery in a defamation suit - Order 31 Rule 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 - proceedings arose from the publication of an article on the Defendant’s website in November 2015 about employment practices in the Irish fishing industry - the two motions seeking non-party discovery were brought against the Department of Tourism, Transport and Sport and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána - the defendant sought 3 categories of documents from the first non-party and 8 categories of documents from the second non-party - the court had previously ordered that the plaintiff provide discovery of a number of documents -whether the documents were relevant and necessary - whether the categories of documents were too broad and oppressive - whether the documents were subject to public interest privilege - whether the documents were covered by confidentiality - Court make the orders for discovery sought against the non-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.
