Steele v Bank Of Scotland & Anor [2018] NICA 48 (19 October 2018)

Steele v Bank Of Scotland & Anor [2018] NICA 48 (19 October 2018)

The trial judge correctly ordered specific discovery because the defendants' affidavit of discovery was based on an unduly narrow and partisan view of relevance, failing to comply with Order 24. The categories of documents sought were relevant to the pleaded issues, and the judge's order was neither vague nor uncertain. However, the second defendant's disposal and financial plans were not relevant to the pleaded issues, as the reasons for repudiation were not in dispute.

Citation
[2018] NICA 48
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Alastair Steele; First Defendant/appellant: Bank of Scotland; Second Defendant/appellant: Ennis Property Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal And, If Granted, Substantive Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Order on Specific Discovery
Outcome
Appeal of first defendant dismissed; appeal of second defendant allowed in part
Legal Topics
Discovery (specific Discovery), Relevance of Documents, Interpretation of Contracts, Repudiatory Breach, Non Recourse Lending, Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Banking Law Discovery (specific Discovery) Relevance of Documents Interpretation of Contracts Repudiatory Breach Non Recourse Lending +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alastair Steele

Plaintiff/respondent

Bank of Scotland

First Defendant/appellant

Ennis Property Finance Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal And, If Granted, Substantive Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Order on Specific Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ordering specific discovery of certain categories of documents from the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit of discovery by the first defendant was sufficient and compliant with Order 24
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in requiring identification of privileged documents

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly ordered specific discovery because the defendants' affidavit of discovery was based on an unduly narrow and partisan view of relevance, failing to comply with Order 24. The categories of documents sought were relevant to the pleaded issues, and the judge's order was neither vague nor uncertain. However, the second defendant's disposal and financial plans were not relevant to the pleaded issues, as the reasons for repudiation were not in dispute.

Court Disposition

Appeal of first defendant dismissed; appeal of second defendant allowed in part

Orders

  • Affirmation of trial judge's order for specific discovery against first defendant for most categories of documents
  • Affirmation of order for discovery of emails and diary entries