Keating v Radio Telefís Éireann & ors [2013] IESC 22 (09 May 2013)

Keating v Radio Telefís Éireann & ors [2013] IESC 22 (09 May 2013)

The Supreme Court held that only the judiciary can determine privilege claims and competing public interests in discovery; the Revenue Commissioners cannot avoid discovery by asserting privilege at the outset unless success is inevitable, which was not established; the documents sought were relevant and necessary; the order was not oppressive nor a fishing expedition; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[2013] IESC 22
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Keating; Defendant/respondent: Radio Telefís Éireann; Non Party: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Non Party/appellant: The Revenue Commissioners
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Third Party Discovery
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Privilege, Separation of Powers, Defamation
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Discovery Privilege Separation of Powers Defamation

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 1 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Keating

Plaintiff

Radio Telefís Éireann

Defendant/respondent

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Non Party

The Revenue Commissioners

Non Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Third Party Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in ordering third party discovery against the Revenue Commissioners
  2. 2 Whether privilege can defeat discovery at the affidavit stage
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are relevant and necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that only the judiciary can determine privilege claims and competing public interests in discovery; the Revenue Commissioners cannot avoid discovery by asserting privilege at the outset unless success is inevitable, which was not established; the documents sought were relevant and necessary; the order was not oppressive nor a fishing expedition; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Revenue Commissioners required to comply with third party discovery order; privilege claims to be determined in the normal way