Breslin & ors -v- McKenna & ors [2008] IESC 43 (16 July 2008)

Breslin & ors -v- McKenna & ors [2008] IESC 43 (16 July 2008)

There is no substantive rule of Irish law prohibiting the production of transcripts and books of evidence from criminal proceedings for use in civil proceedings in Northern Ireland, provided the High Court consents and no legal prejudice arises. The requirement for court permission is grounded in the court's responsibility for the administration of justice, not in any implied undertaking. The High Court erred in relying on procedural rules as a substantive bar. The appeals are dismissed, the cross-appeal is allowed, and the declaration is granted subject to High Court or Supreme Court consent.

Citation
[2008] IESC 43
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: Mark Christopher Breslin, Catherina Anne Gallagher, Michael James Gallagher, Audrey Martha Mooney, Caroline Faith Martin, Edmund William Gibson, Elizabeth Catherine Gibson, Robert James Gibson, William James Gibson, Wilma Selina Kyle, Stanley James McCombe, Gerald George McFarland, Marian Elaine Radford, Paul William Radford, Colin David James Wilson, Denise Franchesca Wilson, Garry Godfrey Charles Wilson, Geraldine Ann Rebecca Wilson and Godfrey David James Wilson; Defendants/appellants: Seamus McKenna, John Michael Henry McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Michael Colm Murphy, Seamus Daly
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment Following High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed, cross-appeal allowed, High Court order affirmed with modification
Legal Topics
Production of Evidence Across Jurisdictions, Implied Undertaking in Criminal Disclosure, Use of Criminal Trial Materials in Civil Proceedings, Judicial Discretion in Evidence Production, Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Evidence International Judicial Cooperation Production of Evidence Across Jurisdictions Implied Undertaking in Criminal Disclosure Use of Criminal Trial Materials in Civil Proceedings Judicial Discretion in Evidence Production +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Christopher Breslin, Catherina Anne Gallagher, Michael James Gallagher, Audrey Martha Mooney, Caroline Faith Martin, Edmund William Gibson, Elizabeth Catherine Gibson, Robert James Gibson, William James Gibson, Wilma Selina Kyle, Stanley James McCombe, Gerald George McFarland, Marian Elaine Radford, Paul William Radford, Colin David James Wilson, Denise Franchesca Wilson, Garry Godfrey Charles Wilson, Geraldine Ann Rebecca Wilson and Godfrey David James Wilson

Plaintiffs/respondents

Seamus McKenna, John Michael Henry McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Michael Colm Murphy, Seamus Daly

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment Following High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Irish law prevents defendants from producing transcripts and books of evidence from criminal proceedings for use in civil proceedings in Northern Ireland
  2. 2 Whether an implied undertaking restricts use of such documents
  3. 3 Whether court permission is required for such production

Ratio Decidendi

There is no substantive rule of Irish law prohibiting the production of transcripts and books of evidence from criminal proceedings for use in civil proceedings in Northern Ireland, provided the High Court consents and no legal prejudice arises. The requirement for court permission is grounded in the court's responsibility for the administration of justice, not in any implied undertaking. The High Court erred in relying on procedural rules as a substantive bar. The appeals are dismissed, the cross-appeal is allowed, and the declaration is granted subject to High Court or Supreme Court consent.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed, cross-appeal allowed, High Court order affirmed with modification

Orders

  • Consent granted for production of both books of evidence and transcripts in accordance with Northern Ireland court orders, subject to consent of the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal
  • Declaration granted that there is no impediment under Irish law to production of transcripts and books of evidence for inspection, provided there is consent of the High Court or Supreme Court