Goode Concrete v CRH Plc & Ors [2020] IECA 56 (19 February 2020)

Goode Concrete v CRH Plc & Ors [2020] IECA 56 (19 February 2020)

The appellant's requests for discovery were based on speculative or bare assertions unsupported by pleaded facts and failed to meet the threshold for discovery under Irish law. The ordinary principles governing discovery apply equally in competition law cases between private parties, and the trial judge correctly exercised discretion in refusing the categories sought as irrelevant, unnecessary, or disproportionate.

Citation
[2020] IECA 56
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Goode Concrete; Defendant/respondent: CRH PLC; Defendant/respondent: Roadstone Wood Limited; Defendant/respondent: Kilsaran Concrete
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Discovery Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Abuse of Dominance, Collusive Tendering, Predatory Pricing, EU Competition Law, Irish Competition Law
Competition Law Civil Procedure Discovery Abuse of Dominance Collusive Tendering Predatory Pricing EU Competition Law Irish Competition Law

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goode Concrete

Plaintiff/appellant

CRH PLC

Defendant/respondent

Roadstone Wood Limited

Defendant/respondent

Kilsaran Concrete

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Discovery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing categories of discovery sought by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the ordinary principles of discovery apply in competition law cases involving private parties
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's pleadings satisfy the threshold for discovery under Irish law

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's requests for discovery were based on speculative or bare assertions unsupported by pleaded facts and failed to meet the threshold for discovery under Irish law. The ordinary principles governing discovery apply equally in competition law cases between private parties, and the trial judge correctly exercised discretion in refusing the categories sought as irrelevant, unnecessary, or disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of discovery in Categories 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11 against CRH/Roadstone and Kilsaran upheld
  • Discovery confined to specific contracts and timeframe as ordered by the trial judge