Burke -v- Boston Scientific [2016] IECA 230 (28 July 2016)

The right to inspection under Order 31 rule 18 is confined to documents known to exist and identified in an affidavit of discovery or pleadings. The plaintiff's application was not directed to any such documents but sought a general inspection of the defendant's servers and records, which is not permitted under the rules. The High Court correctly refused the application for inspection as it was procedurally misconceived.

Citation: [2016] IECA 230
Parties: Plaintiff/appellant: Carol Burke; Defendant/respondent: Boston Scientific
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 28 July 2016
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Discovery, Inspection of Documents, Affidavit of Discovery, Bullying and Harassment, Personal Injuries

Civil Procedure Discovery Inspection of Documents Affidavit of Discovery Bullying and Harassment Personal Injuries

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Carol Burke

Plaintiff/appellant

Boston Scientific

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order for inspection of the defendant's servers and telephone logs under Order 31 rule 18 of the Rules of the Superior Courts when the documents sought have not been discovered.
2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing the plaintiff's application for inspection.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed