K. (F.M.) v. H. (G.) [2005] IEHC 125 (15 April 2005)

K. (F.M.) v. H. (G.) [2005] IEHC 125 (15 April 2005)

The affidavit content objected to was relevant and admissible for the section 2 application and its incorporation into pleadings was legitimate; it is not prejudicial or scandalous. Discovery is granted for categories of documents relevant to the issues as defined in the pleadings, with modifications to the terms sought.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 125
Parties
Plaintiff: F. M. K; Defendant: G. H.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motions (discovery and Striking Out Affidavit Content)
Outcome
Defendant's motion to strike out affidavit content refused; discovery granted in modified terms for relevant categories.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Discovery, Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. M. K

Plaintiff

G. H.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motions (discovery and Striking Out Affidavit Content)

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 9 and 10 of T. F.'s affidavit should be struck out as irrelevant, prejudicial, or scandalous
  2. 2 Whether discovery should be ordered for specified categories of documents

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit content objected to was relevant and admissible for the section 2 application and its incorporation into pleadings was legitimate; it is not prejudicial or scandalous. Discovery is granted for categories of documents relevant to the issues as defined in the pleadings, with modifications to the terms sought.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion to strike out affidavit content refused; discovery granted in modified terms for relevant categories.

Orders

  • Discovery ordered for specified categories of documents as modified by the court.
  • Refusal to strike out paragraphs 9 and 10 of T. F.'s affidavit.