Wheelock -v- O'Leary & Ors [2015] IEHC 281 (13 May 2015)

Wheelock -v- O'Leary & Ors [2015] IEHC 281 (13 May 2015)

Discovery was ordered only in respect of categories that were relevant, necessary, and sufficiently specific. Categories that were vague, overly broad, or not shown to be necessary were refused. The court accepted limitations proposed by the practice defendants where appropriate and confined discovery to documents held by the practice or within their power or procurement.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 281
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Wheelock; Defendant: Michael O’Leary; Defendant: Dolores O’Leary; Defendant: Justin McConville; Defendant: A firm trading under the styling and title of Michael O’Leary and Company; Defendant: Archdale Construction Limited; Defendant: Sapol Electrical Limited; Defendant: Sinead O’Leary; Defendant: Thomas Bolger; Defendant: Andrew O’Leary
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Discovery
Outcome
Partially granted
Legal Topics
Discovery, Fraud, Misappropriation, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Discovery Fraud Misappropriation Professional Negligence

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 Wheelock

Plaintiff

Michael O’Leary

Defendant

Dolores O’Leary

Defendant

Justin McConville

Defendant

A firm trading under the styling and title of Michael O’Leary and Company

Defendant

Archdale Construction Limited

Defendant

Sapol Electrical Limited

Defendant

Sinead O’Leary

Defendant

Thomas Bolger

Defendant

Andrew O’Leary

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the categories of documents sought in discovery are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the case
  2. 2 Whether discovery should be limited to documents held by the practice defendants or extended to personal documents of the first named defendant
  3. 3 Whether certain categories of discovery are too vague or unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery was ordered only in respect of categories that were relevant, necessary, and sufficiently specific. Categories that were vague, overly broad, or not shown to be necessary were refused. The court accepted limitations proposed by the practice defendants where appropriate and confined discovery to documents held by the practice or within their power or procurement.

Court Disposition

Partially granted

Orders

  • Discovery ordered in respect of certain specified categories as limited by the court's judgment.
  • Discovery refused in respect of categories found to be too vague, unnecessary, or not relevant.