Powers v Greymountain Management Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 243 (19 March 2021)

Powers v Greymountain Management Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 243 (19 March 2021)

The plaintiff's pleadings, though limited by the information available, are sufficiently particularised to justify discovery of documents relating to broader alleged fraudulent activities by the defendants. Such discovery is relevant and necessary to the issues in the proceedings, as proof of similar fraudulent conduct may be probative of the plaintiff's own claim. The request is not speculative or a fishing expedition, and the plaintiff is entitled to discovery as sought.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 243
Parties
Plaintiff: William Thomas Powers; First Defendant: Greymountain Management Limited (In Liquidation); Second Defendant: Ryan Coates; Third Defendant: Liam Grainger; Fourth Defendant: David Cartu; Fifth Defendant: Jonathan Cartu
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Pre Trial Discovery
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for discovery granted against the second to fifth defendants; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause; no order as to defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Pleading Fraud, Binary Options Trading, Agency, Shadow Directorship
Civil Procedure Fraud Commercial Law Discovery of Documents Pleading Fraud Binary Options Trading Agency Shadow Directorship

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Thomas Powers

Plaintiff

Greymountain Management Limited (In Liquidation)

First Defendant

Ryan Coates

Second Defendant

Liam Grainger

Third Defendant

David Cartu

Fourth Defendant

Jonathan Cartu

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Pre Trial Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pre-trial discovery of documents relating to alleged broader fraudulent activities by the defendants beyond his own transactions
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings are sufficiently particularised to justify broader discovery
  3. 3 Whether discovery of documents relating to third-party transactions is relevant and necessary to the plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's pleadings, though limited by the information available, are sufficiently particularised to justify discovery of documents relating to broader alleged fraudulent activities by the defendants. Such discovery is relevant and necessary to the issues in the proceedings, as proof of similar fraudulent conduct may be probative of the plaintiff's own claim. The request is not speculative or a fishing expedition, and the plaintiff is entitled to discovery as sought.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for discovery granted against the second to fifth defendants; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause; no order as to defendants' costs.

Orders

  • Second to fifth defendants to discover documents within their possession, power or procurement relating to binary trading operations carried on by them or connected entities/websites (including Glenridge Capital, UKTVM, beeoptions.com) between 20 May 2014 and 13 July 2017.
  • Discovery of communications between the fourth and/or fifth defendants and the first defendant relating to binary options trading operations associated with the fourth and fifth defendants for the same period.