Flannery & anor -v- Walters & ors [2015] IEHC 714 (04 November 2015)

Flannery & anor -v- Walters & ors [2015] IEHC 714 (04 November 2015)

The plaintiffs have properly established legal advice privilege and litigation privilege over the disputed documents and communications, including those involving Ms. O’Donohue as agent, and the defendants have not provided sufficient evidence to refute these claims. The application for further and better discovery is refused.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 714
Parties
Plaintiff: James Patrick Flannery; Plaintiff: Lexington Services Limited; Defendant: Mortimer John Walters; Defendant: Brian O’Connell; Defendant: Activity Monitoring Solutions Limited; Defendant: Catharsis Technologies Limited; Defendant: Ashley Trust Limited; Defendant: Ashley Nominees Limited; Counterclaim Plaintiff: Catharsis Technologies Limited; Counterclaim Defendant: James Patrick Flannery; Counterclaim Defendant: Bruce Basheer; Counterclaim Defendant: Sheaf-2 Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Discovery
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Discovery, Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege
Civil Procedure Discovery Legal Professional Privilege Litigation Privilege

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Patrick Flannery

Plaintiff

Lexington Services Limited

Plaintiff

Mortimer John Walters

Defendant

Brian O’Connell

Defendant

Activity Monitoring Solutions Limited

Defendant

Catharsis Technologies Limited

Defendant

Ashley Trust Limited

Defendant

Ashley Nominees Limited

Defendant

Catharsis Technologies Limited

Counterclaim Plaintiff

James Patrick Flannery

Counterclaim Defendant

Bruce Basheer

Counterclaim Defendant

Sheaf-2 Limited

Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are obliged to make further and better discovery in categories 47 and 56
  2. 2 Whether legal advice privilege and litigation privilege are properly claimed over certain documents and communications

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs have properly established legal advice privilege and litigation privilege over the disputed documents and communications, including those involving Ms. O’Donohue as agent, and the defendants have not provided sufficient evidence to refute these claims. The application for further and better discovery is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Defendants' application for further and better discovery in categories 47 and 56 is refused.