Promontoria (Aran) Ltd v Sheehy (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 104 (16 April 2020)

Promontoria (Aran) Ltd v Sheehy (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 104 (16 April 2020)

The price paid by the Plaintiff for the loans is relevant to the pleaded defence of unjust enrichment and restitution, as it may bear on the Plaintiff's alleged loss and the extent of enrichment. The defence is not speculative and is fairly put in issue. Discovery of documents relating to the amount paid is necessary for the fair disposal of the action. Confidentiality concerns can be addressed by restricting access through a confidentiality club. The trial judge's order for discovery under Category 4 was correct and proportionate.

Citation
[2020] IECA 104
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Promontoria (Aran) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Sheehy; Third Party: Noel Tynan; Third Party: Brian Moloney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court Discovery Order / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order for discovery affirmed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, Confidentiality, Proportionality
Civil Procedure Equity Contract Law Discovery Unjust Enrichment Restitution Confidentiality Proportionality

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Aran) Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Andrew Sheehy

Defendant/respondent

Noel Tynan

Third Party

Brian Moloney

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court Discovery Order / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents relating to the amount paid by the Plaintiff for the transfer of loans are relevant and necessary for discovery in the context of an unjust enrichment claim
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality and commercial sensitivity justify refusal or limitation of discovery
  3. 3 Whether proportionality and balancing of rights require alternative measures to full discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The price paid by the Plaintiff for the loans is relevant to the pleaded defence of unjust enrichment and restitution, as it may bear on the Plaintiff's alleged loss and the extent of enrichment. The defence is not speculative and is fairly put in issue. Discovery of documents relating to the amount paid is necessary for the fair disposal of the action. Confidentiality concerns can be addressed by restricting access through a confidentiality club. The trial judge's order for discovery under Category 4 was correct and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order for discovery affirmed

Orders

  • Discovery of Category 4 documents relating to the amount paid by the Plaintiff for the transfer of the loans to be made, subject to confidentiality club restrictions limiting inspection to the defendant, his solicitor, and counsel, with undertakings not to use or quote the information in open court or documents...