Ulster Bank Ltd. v. Byrne [1997] IEHC 120 (10th July, 1997)

Ulster Bank Ltd. v. Byrne [1997] IEHC 120 (10th July, 1997)

Discovery under Order 31 Rule 29 requires that the documents sought are relevant to the issue in dispute and that the party from whom discovery is sought is likely to have them; oppression or prejudice to the party must also be considered. Allegations of fraud do not remove the requirement of relevance.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 120
Parties
Applicant: Plaintiff (not named); Respondent/notice Party: Trustee Savings Bank Plc.; Defendant: David Byrne; Respondent/defendant: Alan Graham; Respondent/defendant: Hatley Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Order for Non Party Discovery by the Master of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and refused in part; discovery ordered only in respect of certain categories of documents as specified.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Non Party Discovery, Garnishee Orders, Relevance of Documents, Oppression in Discovery
Civil Procedure Discovery Non Party Discovery Garnishee Orders Relevance of Documents Oppression in Discovery

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (not named)

Applicant

Trustee Savings Bank Plc.

Respondent/notice Party

David Byrne

Defendant

Alan Graham

Respondent/defendant

Hatley Company Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Order for Non Party Discovery by the Master of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant is entitled to non-party discovery against Trustee Savings Bank Plc. under Order 31 Rule 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issue between the Plaintiff and Alan Graham regarding entitlement to monies in account 00228901
  3. 3 Whether oppression or prejudice would be caused to the Bank by making discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery under Order 31 Rule 29 requires that the documents sought are relevant to the issue in dispute and that the party from whom discovery is sought is likely to have them; oppression or prejudice to the party must also be considered. Allegations of fraud do not remove the requirement of relevance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and refused in part; discovery ordered only in respect of certain categories of documents as specified.

Orders

  • Discovery allowed for documents in paragraphs 1(A), (B), (D), (E), (F), (H) (for specified period), and (J) of the Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 1997.
  • Discovery refused for documents in paragraphs 1(C), (G), (H) (post 5th April 1995), (I), and (K) of the Notice of Motion.