Quinlivan v. Conroy [1998] IEHC 212; [1999] 1 IR 271 (3rd April, 1998)

Quinlivan v. Conroy [1998] IEHC 212; [1999] 1 IR 271 (3rd April, 1998)

The application for discovery was refused because the Respondents were not, and had never been, in possession, power, or custody of the documents sought, and thus could not be compelled to produce them under the relevant procedural rules.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 212
Parties
Applicant: Quinlivan; Respondent: Conroy and Another
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Application for Discovery Prior to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Sovereign Immunity, Political Offence Exception, Extradition Proceedings
Criminal Law Extradition Law Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Sovereign Immunity Political Offence Exception Extradition Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinlivan

Applicant

Conroy and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Application for Discovery Prior to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are in possession, power, or custody of the documents sought for discovery
  2. 2 Whether discovery can be ordered against the Respondents in the context of extradition proceedings
  3. 3 Whether sovereign immunity precludes discovery against foreign authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The application for discovery was refused because the Respondents were not, and had never been, in possession, power, or custody of the documents sought, and thus could not be compelled to produce them under the relevant procedural rules.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery dismissed

Orders

  • Application for discovery refused
  • Proceedings to continue to substantive appeal