Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (In Special Liquidation) & Ors -v- Quinn & Ors [2015] IECA 84 (29 April 2015)

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (In Special Liquidation) & Ors -v- Quinn & Ors [2015] IECA 84 (29 April 2015)

The High Court order requiring disclosure of subject titles and attachment names for privileged documents risked undermining privilege and should be replaced by a requirement for a meaningful narrative description sufficient for the receivers to assess privilege claims. The High Court retained jurisdiction to vary the inspection process, even where based on a Supreme Court order reflecting party agreement, due to practical unworkability and the need for efficient litigation management.

Citation
[2015] IECA 84
Parties
Plaintiffs: Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in Special Liquidation) and Others; Defendants: Sean Quinn, Ciara Quinn, Colette Quinn, Sean Quinn Junior, Brenda Quinn, Aoife Quinn, Stephen Kelly, Peter Darragh Quinn, Niall McPartland, Indian Trust A. B., Forfar Overseas S. A., Lockerbie Investments S. A., Clonmore Investments S. A., Marfine Investments Limited, Blandun Enterprises Limited, Mecon FZE, CJSC Vneshkonsalt, 000 Stroitelnyye Tekhnologii, 000 RLC - Development, Karen Woods, Senat FZC, Senat Legal Consultancy FZLLC, Michael Waechter; Receivers: Declan Taite and Sharon Barrett
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Discovery and Inspection Processes
Outcome
First appeal allowed in part; High Court order replaced with requirement for meaningful narrative and solicitor's affidavit. Second appeal dismissed; High Court's variation of inspection process affirmed.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Discovery and Inspection of Documents, Receivership, Variation of Court Orders, Mareva Injunctions
Civil Procedure Banking Law Insolvency Legal Professional Privilege Discovery and Inspection of Documents Receivership Variation of Court Orders Mareva Injunctions

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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in Special Liquidation) and Others

Plaintiffs

Sean Quinn, Ciara Quinn, Colette Quinn, Sean Quinn Junior, Brenda Quinn, Aoife Quinn, Stephen Kelly, Peter Darragh Quinn, Niall McPartland, Indian Trust A. B., Forfar Overseas S. A., Lockerbie Investments S. A., Clonmore Investments S. A., Marfine Investments Limited, Blandun Enterprises Limited, Mecon FZE, CJSC Vneshkonsalt, 000 Stroitelnyye Tekhnologii, 000 RLC - Development, Karen Woods, Senat FZC, Senat Legal Consultancy FZLLC, Michael Waechter

Defendants

Declan Taite and Sharon Barrett

Receivers

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Discovery and Inspection Processes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in requiring disclosure of subject titles and attachment names for documents over which privilege is claimed
  2. 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to vary a Supreme Court order regarding the inspection process
  3. 3 Whether a court-ordered inspection process based on party agreement can be varied absent misapprehension

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court order requiring disclosure of subject titles and attachment names for privileged documents risked undermining privilege and should be replaced by a requirement for a meaningful narrative description sufficient for the receivers to assess privilege claims. The High Court retained jurisdiction to vary the inspection process, even where based on a Supreme Court order reflecting party agreement, due to practical unworkability and the need for efficient litigation management.

Court Disposition

First appeal allowed in part; High Court order replaced with requirement for meaningful narrative and solicitor's affidavit. Second appeal dismissed; High Court's variation of inspection process affirmed.

Orders

  • Personal defendants to provide a meaningful narrative description for each document over which privilege is claimed, sufficient for the receivers to assess the claim without disclosing privileged content.
  • Solicitor responsible for discovery to swear an affidavit confirming inspection and proper categorisation of privileged documents.