Quinlivan v. Conroy [1998] IESC 31; [1999] 1 IR 271 (29th October, 1998)
The appeal was dismissed because the respondents did not have possession or power over the documents sought, and the appellant failed to establish the relevance of the documents to any live issue in the litigation. The legal right to obtain the documents was not established, nor were the British authorities joined as parties.
- Citation
- [1998] IESC 31
- Parties
- Appellant: Nessan Quinlivan; Respondents: Assistant Commissioners of the Garda Síochána
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Discovery
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Discovery, Extradition, Political Offence Exception, Agent Provocateur, Jurisdiction, Possession and Power of Documents
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nessan Quinlivan
Appellant
Assistant Commissioners of the Garda Síochána
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Discovery
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are in possession or power of the documents sought for discovery
- 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in the extradition proceedings
- 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to discovery against the respondents in the context of extradition proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the respondents did not have possession or power over the documents sought, and the appellant failed to establish the relevance of the documents to any live issue in the litigation. The legal right to obtain the documents was not established, nor were the British authorities joined as parties.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; no order for discovery granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment