O'Brien -v- Revenue Commissioners & Ors [2016] IEHC 138 (16 March 2016)

O'Brien -v- Revenue Commissioners & Ors [2016] IEHC 138 (16 March 2016)

The plaintiff failed to establish a legitimate basis in the pleadings for discovery beyond the specific incident of 16 April 2013. The broader categories sought were speculative and unsupported by identifiable events or facts. The defendants' admissions and willingness to make discovery in respect of the pleaded incident satisfied the requirements for fair disposal of the action. Discovery in respect of categories 6, 7, and 8 was refused as unnecessary and irrelevant.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 138
Parties
Plaintiff: Denis O'Brien; First Defendant: Revenue Commissioners; Second Defendant: Michael K Brennan; Third Defendant: Etáin Croasdell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Discovery
Outcome
Application for discovery granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Misfeasance in Public Office, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Right to Privacy, Disclosure of Taxpayer Information
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Data Protection Tort Law Discovery of Documents Misfeasance in Public Office Breach of Confidence Breach of Statutory Duty +2 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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis O'Brien

Plaintiff

Revenue Commissioners

First Defendant

Michael K Brennan

Second Defendant

Etáin Croasdell

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the categories of documents sought relating to alleged wrongful disclosure of his tax affairs by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the scope of discovery should extend to documents concerning disclosures to third parties beyond the media
  3. 3 Whether discovery is necessary to establish the status of the second and third defendants as public officers

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish a legitimate basis in the pleadings for discovery beyond the specific incident of 16 April 2013. The broader categories sought were speculative and unsupported by identifiable events or facts. The defendants' admissions and willingness to make discovery in respect of the pleaded incident satisfied the requirements for fair disposal of the action. Discovery in respect of categories 6, 7, and 8 was refused as unnecessary and irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Discovery directed in respect of categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as agreed by the defendants, with the addition that discovery should include documents concerning disclosure to any third party under categories 1, 2, and 5.
  • Application for discovery in respect of categories 6, 7, and 8 refused.