Tobin v Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57 (15 July 2019)

Tobin v Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57 (15 July 2019)

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in restricting discovery to the ERF and in requiring interrogatories as a precondition for discovery in circumstances where the pleadings and particulars did not confine Mr. Tobin's claim so narrowly. The Court reaffirmed that the default position is that relevant documents are necessary for discovery, but this can be displaced if the requested party demonstrates that discovery would be disproportionately burdensome and that alternative procedures would be equally effective. In this case, the pleadings justified broader discovery than the Court of Appeal allowed, and the State's blanket denial in its defence expanded the scope of...

Citation
[2019] IESC 57
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gavin Tobin; Defendants/respondents: The Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (personal Injuries/discovery) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Proportionality in Discovery, Necessity of Discovery, Alternative Procedures to Discovery, Pleadings and Relevance
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Discovery Proportionality in Discovery Necessity of Discovery Alternative Procedures to Discovery Pleadings and Relevance

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavin Tobin

Plaintiff/appellant

The Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (personal Injuries/discovery) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in restricting the scope of discovery ordered by the High Court in a personal injuries action.
  2. 2 Whether discovery should be limited by proportionality and alternative procedural mechanisms such as interrogatories.
  3. 3 How the pleadings define the scope of discovery and the relevance of affidavit evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in restricting discovery to the ERF and in requiring interrogatories as a precondition for discovery in circumstances where the pleadings and particulars did not confine Mr. Tobin's claim so narrowly. The Court reaffirmed that the default position is that relevant documents are necessary for discovery, but this can be displaced if the requested party demonstrates that discovery would be disproportionately burdensome and that alternative procedures would be equally effective. In this case, the pleadings justified broader discovery than the Court of Appeal allowed, and the State's blanket denial in its defence expanded the scope of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal restricting discovery set aside.
  • Discovery to be made as per the High Court order, subject to limitation to the period January 1, 1990 to February 28, 1994 for certain categories.