Hogan v. McAteer [2002] IEHC 71 (28 June 2002)

Hogan v. McAteer [2002] IEHC 71 (28 June 2002)

The plaintiff’s application for discovery was refused because the reasons advanced were non-specific, formulaic, and did not meet the requirements of Order 31 rule 12 as amended by S.I. 233 of 1999, which demands specific and necessary reasons for each category of documents sought.

Citation
[2002] IEHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Darrish Hogan; Defendant: Eunan McAteer; Defendant: The Mid Western Health Board
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Discovery / Decision of the Master
Outcome
Application for discovery refused
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Workplace Injury, Rules of Court
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Workplace Injury Rules of Court

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darrish Hogan

Plaintiff

Eunan McAteer

Defendant

The Mid Western Health Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Discovery / Decision of the Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for discovery meets the requirements of Order 31 rule 12 as amended by S.I. 233 of 1999
  2. 2 Whether the reasons provided for discovery are sufficiently specific and necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff’s application for discovery was refused because the reasons advanced were non-specific, formulaic, and did not meet the requirements of Order 31 rule 12 as amended by S.I. 233 of 1999, which demands specific and necessary reasons for each category of documents sought.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery refused

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s application for discovery is refused