Hansfield Development & ors -v- Irish Asphalt Limited & ors [2009] IESC 4 (23 January 2009)

Hansfield Development & ors -v- Irish Asphalt Limited & ors [2009] IESC 4 (23 January 2009)

The relationship between the unrelated development (Hamilton Hall) and the relevant developments is too tenuous for the documents sought to be considered relevant or necessary. The issues will be resolved by expert evidence, not by discovery of documents from Homebond. The High Court did not provide valid reasoning for its discretionary order, so the Supreme Court reviewed the matter afresh and found the order for discovery should be set aside.

Citation
[2009] IESC 4
Parties
Plaintiff: Hansfield Developments, Viking Construction, Menolly Properties, Menolly Homes; Defendant/respondent: Irish Asphalt Limited, Lagan Holdings Limited, Lagan Construction Limited; Non Party/appellant: National House Building Guarantee Company Limited (Homebond)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Review of High Court Discovery Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order for discovery set aside
Legal Topics
Discovery, Relevance, Necessity, Non Party Discovery, Discretionary Orders
Civil Procedure Discovery Relevance Necessity Non Party Discovery Discretionary Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hansfield Developments, Viking Construction, Menolly Properties, Menolly Homes

Plaintiff

Irish Asphalt Limited, Lagan Holdings Limited, Lagan Construction Limited

Defendant/respondent

National House Building Guarantee Company Limited (Homebond)

Non Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Review of High Court Discovery Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discovery against a non-party (Homebond) of documents relating to unrelated developments and standards is relevant and necessary for fair disposal of the action
  2. 2 Whether the High Court exercised its discretion reasonably in granting discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between the unrelated development (Hamilton Hall) and the relevant developments is too tenuous for the documents sought to be considered relevant or necessary. The issues will be resolved by expert evidence, not by discovery of documents from Homebond. The High Court did not provide valid reasoning for its discretionary order, so the Supreme Court reviewed the matter afresh and found the order for discovery should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order for discovery set aside

Orders

  • Order for discovery against Homebond in respect of categories (a), (b), and (c) set aside