Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 614 (27 November 2020)

Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 614 (27 November 2020)

The court found that, despite initial deficiencies, the Millett defendants had adequately addressed the plaintiffs’ complaints through affidavits and IT expert evidence, explaining the loss of data due to a ransomware attack and the steps taken to recover or search for documents. The court held that ordering inspection/search of IT systems by an independent expert would serve no useful purpose, would be unfair and disproportionate, and that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold for further and better discovery. However, the court ordered Mr. Millett to swear a further affidavit confirming the search of a laptop for responsive documents at the time discovery was made.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 614
Parties
Plaintiffs: Ann Nolan, Elizabeth Nolan, Joan Nolan, Richard Nolan, Patricia Nolan, Sally Nolan and Quest Capital Trustees Limited; Defendants: Dildar Limited, Ciaran Desmond, Colm S. McGuire, Derval M. O’Halloran (formerly trading as McGuire Desmond Solicitors), John Millett, Pinnacle Pensioner Trustees Limited, Dildar Limited, John Millett Independent Financial Advisors Limited, Dillon Kenny, Darren Kenny, Paul Kenny; Third Parties: Stephen Declan Murphy, Edel Murphy, Kevin Joseph McMahon, John Lynch, EFG Bank AG, BNP Paribas Wealth Management, United Overseas Bank Limited, Allied Finance Trust AG
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings (commercial Court) / Ruling on Plaintiffs' Application for Inspection/search of Defendants' IT Systems Following Alleged Inadequate Discovery
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application for inspection/search of IT systems refused; order for further affidavit granted.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Electronic Discovery, Inherent Jurisdiction, Proportionality in Discovery, Cybersecurity and Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Discovery of Documents Electronic Discovery Inherent Jurisdiction Proportionality in Discovery Cybersecurity and Litigation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann Nolan, Elizabeth Nolan, Joan Nolan, Richard Nolan, Patricia Nolan, Sally Nolan and Quest Capital Trustees Limited

Plaintiffs

Dildar Limited, Ciaran Desmond, Colm S. McGuire, Derval M. O’Halloran (formerly trading as McGuire Desmond Solicitors), John Millett, Pinnacle Pensioner Trustees Limited, Dildar Limited, John Millett Independent Financial Advisors Limited, Dillon Kenny, Darren Kenny, Paul Kenny

Defendants

Stephen Declan Murphy, Edel Murphy, Kevin Joseph McMahon, John Lynch, EFG Bank AG, BNP Paribas Wealth Management, United Overseas Bank Limited, Allied Finance Trust AG

Third Parties

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings (commercial Court) / Ruling on Plaintiffs' Application for Inspection/search of Defendants' IT Systems Following Alleged Inadequate Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Millett defendants complied adequately with their discovery obligations in light of a claimed ransomware attack
  2. 2 Whether the court should order inspection/search of defendants' IT systems by an independent expert
  3. 3 Whether further affidavits or other remedies are appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite initial deficiencies, the Millett defendants had adequately addressed the plaintiffs’ complaints through affidavits and IT expert evidence, explaining the loss of data due to a ransomware attack and the steps taken to recover or search for documents. The court held that ordering inspection/search of IT systems by an independent expert would serve no useful purpose, would be unfair and disproportionate, and that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold for further and better discovery. However, the court ordered Mr. Millett to swear a further affidavit confirming the search of a laptop for responsive documents at the time discovery was made.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application for inspection/search of IT systems refused; order for further affidavit granted.

Orders

  • Application for inspection and search by independent expert refused.
  • Mr. Millett to swear a further affidavit confirming the search of the laptop for responsive documents at the time of discovery.