Doyle v. Matassa [2004] IEHC 388 (9 December 2004)

Doyle v. Matassa [2004] IEHC 388 (9 December 2004)

Discovery will only be ordered where the applicant demonstrates, with supporting evidence, that the documents sought are necessary for the fair disposal of the case. Mere assertion of necessity, without reference to evidential difficulties or inability to prove facts otherwise, is insufficient. In this case, only the cleaning schedule for the evening of the accident and any recordings of the incident (if they exist) are self-evidently necessary and thus discoverable.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 388
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Doyle; Defendant: Bruno Matassa
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Civil Action / Discovery Application Before the Master
Outcome
Partial order for discovery granted; costs of the application not awarded to the plaintiff; only defendant's costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Personal Injury, Premises Liability
Civil Procedure Tort Law Discovery of Documents Personal Injury Premises Liability

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Doyle

Plaintiff

Bruno Matassa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Civil Action / Discovery Application Before the Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established necessity for discovery of the requested categories of documents under the amended rules
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's affidavit sufficiently verifies evidential difficulties justifying discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery will only be ordered where the applicant demonstrates, with supporting evidence, that the documents sought are necessary for the fair disposal of the case. Mere assertion of necessity, without reference to evidential difficulties or inability to prove facts otherwise, is insufficient. In this case, only the cleaning schedule for the evening of the accident and any recordings of the incident (if they exist) are self-evidently necessary and thus discoverable.

Court Disposition

Partial order for discovery granted; costs of the application not awarded to the plaintiff; only defendant's costs reserved.

Orders

  • Order for discovery of records of the cleaning schedule for the evening of 6th January 1996.
  • Order for discovery of any video or other recordings of the incident (noting none exist).