Mc Mullen -v- Kennedy practicing under the style and title of Giles J Kennedy & Company Solicitors [2007] IEHC 263 (17 July 2007)

Mc Mullen -v- Kennedy practicing under the style and title of Giles J Kennedy & Company Solicitors [2007] IEHC 263 (17 July 2007)

Applicant failed to establish any basis for lifting privilege over the documents except for those already disclosed or commented upon in prior proceedings; no evidence of fraud, crime, conspiracy, or sufficient moral turpitude was presented to justify disclosure. Privilege remains except for documents already disclosed or commented upon in the Supreme Court.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 263
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Michael Colin Geoffrey McMullen; Respondent/defendant: Giles J. Kennedy, practising under the style and title of Giles J. Kennedy and Company, Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Motion / Application for Access to Privileged Documents and Striking Out Defence
Outcome
Application refused except as to documents already disclosed or commented upon in prior proceedings.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Privilege, Undue Influence, Conspiracy, Waiver of Privilege
Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Discovery Privilege Undue Influence Conspiracy Waiver of Privilege

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Colin Geoffrey McMullen

Applicant/plaintiff

Giles J. Kennedy, practising under the style and title of Giles J. Kennedy and Company, Solicitors

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion / Application for Access to Privileged Documents and Striking Out Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to access privileged documents listed in the second part of the First Schedule of the respondent's affidavit of discovery
  2. 2 Whether privilege should be lifted due to alleged undue influence, conspiracy, or public interest
  3. 3 Whether the defence should be struck out for failure to comply with discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish any basis for lifting privilege over the documents except for those already disclosed or commented upon in prior proceedings; no evidence of fraud, crime, conspiracy, or sufficient moral turpitude was presented to justify disclosure. Privilege remains except for documents already disclosed or commented upon in the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Application refused except as to documents already disclosed or commented upon in prior proceedings.

Orders

  • Disclosure of documents 171, 172, 173, and 174 (letters/faxes between GJK & Co. and Admiral in April-May 1989)
  • Application refused in respect of remaining documents in the second part of the First Schedule