Coughlan & ors -v- ESB Wind Development Ltd [2018] IEHC 368 (15 June 2018)
The court refused discovery in all disputed categories because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate relevance and necessity as required by law. The requests were not properly pleaded, lacked factual basis, and were disproportionate or speculative. Relevant documents were already available or offered, and the categories sought went beyond what was necessary for fair disposal of the issues.
- Citation
- [2018] IEHC 368
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Olivia Coughlan; Plaintiff: Brian Coughlan; Plaintiff: Tom Power; Plaintiff: Moya Power; Plaintiff: Niamh Reynolds; Plaintiff: John Reynolds; Plaintiff: Maurice Reynolds; Plaintiff: Marie O’Malley; Plaintiff: James Power; Plaintiff: Brid Power; Defendant: ESB Wind Development Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 15 June 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Plenary Proceedings / Motion for Discovery
- Outcome
- application for discovery refused
- Legal Topics
- Discovery, Nuisance, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Planning Permission, Public Consultation, Statutory Authority
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Olivia Coughlan
Plaintiff
Brian Coughlan
Plaintiff
Tom Power
Plaintiff
Moya Power
Plaintiff
Niamh Reynolds
Plaintiff
John Reynolds
Plaintiff
Maurice Reynolds
Plaintiff
Marie O’Malley
Plaintiff
James Power
Plaintiff
Brid Power
Plaintiff
ESB Wind Development Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Motion for Discovery
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the categories of documents sought by plaintiffs are relevant and necessary for fair disposal of the case or saving costs
- 2 Whether discovery should be ordered for categories relating to design, compliance, public consultation, regulator correspondence, and legal agreements
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused discovery in all disputed categories because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate relevance and necessity as required by law. The requests were not properly pleaded, lacked factual basis, and were disproportionate or speculative. Relevant documents were already available or offered, and the categories sought went beyond what was necessary for fair disposal of the issues.
Court Disposition
application for discovery refused
Orders
- No order for discovery in any disputed category
- Plaintiffs' motion for discovery denied
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