E.S. -v- B.S. [2010] IEHC 545 (23 April 2010)

E.S. -v- B.S. [2010] IEHC 545 (23 April 2010)

The prohibition on use of discovery documents outside the proceedings does not extend to disclosure of the affidavit and memoranda to the bank in this case because the conveyancing solicitors acted for both the respondent and the bank in certifying title, and the bank is a necessary party to the proceedings. There is no public policy reason to prevent such disclosure, and the respondent's reliance on privilege and implied undertaking is unjustified in the context of family law disclosure requirements.

Citation
[2010] IEHC 545
Parties
Applicant: E. S.; Respondent: B. S.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law (divorce) / Post Decree Enforcement and Variation Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Divorce Decree Enforcement, Legal Professional Privilege, Discovery and Disclosure, Mortgage Set Aside, In Camera Rule
Family Law Civil Procedure Divorce Decree Enforcement Legal Professional Privilege Discovery and Disclosure Mortgage Set Aside In Camera Rule

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. S.

Applicant

B. S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law (divorce) / Post Decree Enforcement and Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether legal professional privilege or implied undertaking prohibits disclosure of solicitor's affidavit and internal memoranda to the bank
  2. 2 Whether the applicant may serve the affidavit of the respondent's conveyancing solicitor on the bank
  3. 3 Whether the respondent misled the applicant and the court regarding the existence of a top-up mortgage prior to the divorce decree

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on use of discovery documents outside the proceedings does not extend to disclosure of the affidavit and memoranda to the bank in this case because the conveyancing solicitors acted for both the respondent and the bank in certifying title, and the bank is a necessary party to the proceedings. There is no public policy reason to prevent such disclosure, and the respondent's reliance on privilege and implied undertaking is unjustified in the context of family law disclosure requirements.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's application to prohibit disclosure of the affidavit and memoranda to the bank is dismissed