Waterford Credit Union v J & E Davy (Approved) [2020] IESC 9 (24 March 2020)

Waterford Credit Union v J & E Davy (Approved) [2020] IESC 9 (24 March 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the ISE Reports are both relevant and necessary to the issues in dispute, as they address systemic issues in Davy's advice to credit unions regarding CMS bonds, which is central to Waterford's claim. The breach of the implied undertaking by Waterford's solicitor, while serious, was not committed by Waterford itself and did not justify refusing discovery where the documents are otherwise discoverable and necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. The court emphasized that the overriding obligation is to ensure substantive justice between the parties, and that confidentiality must yield where necessary for the administration of justice.

Citation
[2020] IESC 9
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Waterford Credit Union; Defendant / Respondent: J & E Davy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; discovery of the ISE Reports ordered.
Legal Topics
Discovery in Civil Litigation, Implied Undertaking in Discovery, Breach of Statutory Duty, Confidentiality of Regulatory Documents, Investment Advice Liability
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Law Discovery in Civil Litigation Implied Undertaking in Discovery Breach of Statutory Duty Confidentiality of Regulatory Documents Investment Advice Liability

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waterford Credit Union

Plaintiff / Appellant

J & E Davy

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ISE Reports are relevant and necessary for discovery under O. 31, r. 12 RSC
  2. 2 Whether a breach of the implied undertaking by a solicitor in separate proceedings justifies refusal of discovery in the present case
  3. 3 Scope and consequences of the implied undertaking in discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the ISE Reports are both relevant and necessary to the issues in dispute, as they address systemic issues in Davy's advice to credit unions regarding CMS bonds, which is central to Waterford's claim. The breach of the implied undertaking by Waterford's solicitor, while serious, was not committed by Waterford itself and did not justify refusing discovery where the documents are otherwise discoverable and necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. The court emphasized that the overriding obligation is to ensure substantive justice between the parties, and that confidentiality must yield where necessary for the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; discovery of the ISE Reports ordered.

Orders

  • Davy to make discovery of the ISE Reports to Waterford.
  • No order for costs against Waterford in respect of the discovery motion.