O'Driscoll v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (in special resolution) & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns motions for discovery heard in January 2015 related to a prior order for discovery made by the Court on 7th February 2014. The plaintiff initiated proceedings against the defendants, including a bank in special resolution and its assurance company, seeking discovery of documents relevant to the case. The defendants contested the adequacy of the plaintiff's discovery compliance and also advanced their own discovery issues, including claims of legal professional privilege and the propriety of document redactions. The Court was tasked with determining whether further or better discovery orders were warranted in light of these disputes.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff complied fully with the original discovery order, particularly regarding the specification and explanation of legal professional privilege claimed over certain documents.
2. Whether there were communications between the plaintiff and other investors relevant to the proceedings that had not been disclosed.
3. Whether the defendants' redactions to discovered documents and claims of legal professional privilege were justified and proper.
4. Whether the defendants had made adequate discovery in accordance with the prior Court order.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The schedule of privileged documents provided by the plaintiff was inadequate because it did not specify the form of privilege claimed for each document nor the subject matter of each document.
• The defendants contended that certain documents discovered contained redactions on grounds of irrelevance and commercial sensitivity, including information relating to other funds not involved in the proceedings.
• The defendants argued that the Court should not question the bona fides of their solicitor's affidavit, despite its terseness, and that the affidavit sufficiently justified the redactions and privilege claims.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The plaintiff asserted full compliance with the original discovery order, including a clear claim of legal professional privilege.
• The plaintiff denied the existence of any communications with other investors as alleged by the defendants and confirmed this by affidavit.
• The plaintiff did not challenge the bona fides of the defendants' affidavits but sought further clarity on privilege claims if necessary.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first examined the plaintiff's compliance with the original discovery order, focusing on two disputed issues: the characterization of privileged documents and the alleged communications with other investors. After reviewing a supplemental affidavit clarifying these points, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had fully complied and found no basis for further discovery orders on these issues.

Regarding the defendants' discovery, the Court considered affidavits from the defendants' solicitor and the special liquidator, which addressed the nature of document redactions and legal professional privilege claims. The Court accepted that redactions were made on legitimate grounds of irrelevance and commercial sensitivity, particularly concerning documents unrelated to the proceedings.

The Court conducted a review of the documents claimed to be privileged and concluded that they properly fell within legal professional privilege and thus did not require production to the plaintiff.

Overall, the Court found that both parties had complied with the discovery order of 7th February 2014, and that the challenged redactions and privilege claims were justified.

Holding and Implications

The Court DENIED the application for further and better discovery by the first defendant against the plaintiff concerning Issues 8 and 10.

The Court UPHELD the defendants' claims of legal professional privilege and the propriety of their document redactions, finding full compliance with the prior discovery order.

This decision resolves the discovery disputes without requiring additional disclosure or modification of the existing discovery orders. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling primarily affects the parties by confirming the adequacy of discovery compliance and the protection of privileged and commercially sensitive information.