Hansfield Developments & Ors -v- Irish Asphalt Ltd & Ors [2009] IEHC 90 (17 February 2009)

Hansfield Developments & Ors -v- Irish Asphalt Ltd & Ors [2009] IEHC 90 (17 February 2009)

The documents in question were not created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation; any litigation purpose was secondary or equal to other purposes, such as addressing and investigating the pyrite issue with HomeBond. Therefore, litigation privilege does not attach, except for one document which is privileged as it relates to a confidential settlement.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 90
Parties
Plaintiff: Hansfield Developments; Plaintiff: Viking Construction; Plaintiff: Menolly Properties; Plaintiff: Menolly Homes; Defendant: Irish Asphalt Ltd.; Defendant: Lagan Holdings Ltd.; Defendant: Lagan Construction Ltd.; Defendant: Lagan Cement Group Ltd. (formerly Lagan Holdings Ltd.)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Documents and Determination of Privilege
Outcome
Privilege claim rejected for all but one document
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Common Interest Privilege, Discovery of Documents
Civil Procedure Evidence Litigation Privilege Common Interest Privilege Discovery of Documents

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

Hansfield Developments

Plaintiff

Viking Construction

Plaintiff

Menolly Properties

Plaintiff

Menolly Homes

Plaintiff

Irish Asphalt Ltd.

Defendant

Lagan Holdings Ltd.

Defendant

Lagan Construction Ltd.

Defendant

Lagan Cement Group Ltd. (formerly Lagan Holdings Ltd.)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Documents and Determination of Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs can claim litigation privilege over communications with HomeBond
  2. 2 Whether common interest privilege applies to documents shared with HomeBond
  3. 3 Whether the dominant purpose of the documents was preparation for litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The documents in question were not created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation; any litigation purpose was secondary or equal to other purposes, such as addressing and investigating the pyrite issue with HomeBond. Therefore, litigation privilege does not attach, except for one document which is privileged as it relates to a confidential settlement.

Court Disposition

Privilege claim rejected for all but one document

Orders

  • Plaintiffs must make available for inspection the documents at issue, except for document P21360/1, which remains privileged.