Introduction

The High Court of Ireland, in the case of Persona Digital Telephony Ltd & Anor v Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 110, addressed a request to correct an alleged factual error in an earlier principal judgment. The core dispute originated from a discrepancy in a description of the Tribunal’s findings regarding the GSM licence award. The parties involved include the plaintiffs, Persona Digital Telephony Limited and Sigma Wireless Networks Limited, and the defendants, notably the Minister for Public Enterprise, the Attorney General, and Mr. Denis O’Brien, with Michael Lowry named as a third party. Mr. O’Brien challenged a specific sentence in paragraph 87 of the principal judgment, arguing that it inaccurately paraphrased the Tribunal’s findings on corruption allegations.

This commentary examines the context, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications stemming from the decision to maintain a corrective approach using both statutory provisions (Order 28 rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Court) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court delivered its ruling to correct a factual discrepancy identified by Mr. O’Brien. In the original judgment ([2025] IEHC 33), the court had paraphrased the Tribunal’s findings by stating that there was a conclusion of corruption affecting the GSM licence award. Mr. O’Brien contended that this statement was erroneous, as no express finding of corruption had been made by the Tribunal. After reviewing the submissions and the relevant evidence, the court agreed that no formal finding was present; however, it declined to remove the sentence entirely. Instead, the court directed an amendment to paragraph 87 by substituting the original first sentence with a detailed summary of the Tribunal’s findings as encapsulated in Comcast International Holdings Incorporated v. Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors [2012] IESC 50.

The judgment underscores that judicial corrections under Order 28 rule 11 are permissible provided they do not alter the overall outcome or the coherent import of the judgment. The decision illustrates the court’s balancing exercise between preserving the confidentiality of the Tribunal’s materials and ensuring justice through accurate disclosure.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Two key precedents inform the judicial reasoning in this case:

• Order 28 rule 11 of the RSC: This provision permits the correction of clerical errors or occasional oversights in judgments without the need for an appeal. The court’s reliance on this rule emphasizes its capacity to amend judgments when discrepancies arise, thereby streamlining the judicial process.
• Comcast International Holdings Incorporated v. Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors [2012] IESC 50: In this precedent, McKechnie J. provided a detailed summary of the Tribunal’s findings, which the High Court found instructive. The summary offered clarity on the gravity and nature of the alleged misconduct, particularly around the influence exerted during the GSM licence process. This reference not only contextualizes the findings but also aids in justifying the correction while maintaining the essence of the Tribunal’s investigatory outcome.

Additionally, the court mentions the authoritative commentary found in Delany & McGrath on Civil Procedure (5th ed., 2023) and a remark by McDonald J. in HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LLC & Ors v. English [2021] IEHC 376. Both sources reinforce the principle that judicial decisions remain revisable until perfection and that undisputed errors warrant correction.

Legal Reasoning

The core issue centered on whether the original paraphrasing of the Tribunal’s conclusion—claiming a finding of corruption—was factually acceptable, or if it required correction. In its reasoning, the court:

• Recognized the inherent judicial authority to correct errors as long as that correction does not reverse the prior conclusion or affect the outcome of the proceedings.
• Conducted a careful balancing exercise weighing the need to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the Tribunal’s report against the requirement for transparency in the discovery proceedings.
• Acknowledged that, even though the tribunal did not explicitly state that corruption was found, the context and the underlying findings pointed towards misconduct in the conduct of the GSM licence award process. Thus, the paraphrase was seen as encapsulating the essence of the findings albeit indirectly.

Ultimately, the court opted to preserve the substance of the judgment by substituting the contentious sentence with a more detailed and accurately referenced version drawn from the established precedent in Comcast. This approach corrects the factual error without undermining the overall coherence and impact of the earlier judgment.

Impact

This judgment sets an important precedent in several respects:

• It reaffirms the court’s power to make post-judgment corrections under statutory provisions and inherent jurisdiction, ensuring that minor factual discrepancies can be rectified without necessitating a complete re-litigation or appeal.
• The decision also clarifies that courts may paraphrase investigative findings, provided that such paraphrasing is contextually supported and does not materially affect the legal outcome.
• It offers guidance on balancing essential public interests such as ensuring the proper administration of justice and protecting confidential investigative reports, especially in cases where these elements intersect.

Future cases involving the disclosure of confidential documents in discovery proceedings are likely to draw on this ruling when assessing the weight and replicability of investigative findings versus the public interest.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts in the judgment have been simplified for clarity:

• Judicial Correction under Order 28 rule 11: This allows judges to fix typographical errors or mistakes made in their judgment without having to appeal the decision. In this case, it enabled the correction of a factually disputed sentence.
• Balancing Exercise: The court weighed two competing public interests—maintaining the confidentiality of the Tribunal's report and ensuring fair access to evidence—which is a common scenario when confidential materials are involved in litigation.
• Paraphrasing Judicial Findings: Paraphrasing, in this instance, refers to rewording the Tribunal’s conclusions in the judgment. The court clarified that such rewordings do not need to be verbatim as long as the essential meaning is accurately captured.

Conclusion

In Persona Digital Telephony Ltd & Anor v Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors, the High Court addressed a factual discrepancy regarding the characterization of the Tribunal’s findings. While it was conceded that the Tribunal had not made an express formal finding of corruption, the court maintained that the paraphrasing in the judgment was both functional and contextually appropriate for capturing the gravity of the matters under investigation.

By directing the substitution of the wording with a detailed summary from the Comcast precedent, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s flexibility in correcting inadvertent errors while safeguarding the integrity of its determinations. This decision not only reinforces the boundaries of judicial corrections but also charts a clear course for future disputes that entail balancing public interest and confidentiality in discovery proceedings.

The case stands as a significant precedent in clarifying how decisions should be revised when factual inaccuracies are noted, ensuring that the transparency and fairness of judicial processes are maintained.