McFadden v Pentire Property Finance DAC & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated proceedings concerning certain properties that were provided as security by way of a mortgage deed dated 3rd December 2003 between the Plaintiff and another party, and Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited. The Plaintiff contends that the security documents were not completed in accordance with law and challenges the subsequent sale and transfer of the loans and related security from Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited to the first Defendant, Pentire Property Finance DAC.

The Plaintiff initially sought discovery of specified documents in April 2018; however, that motion was adjourned multiple times and ultimately struck out due to non-attendance. Substantial documentation was furnished to the Plaintiff by the Defendants' solicitor prior to the striking out. The current application concerns the Plaintiff's request for production, inspection, and unredaction of certain documents previously provided in redacted form, which he claims are deficient.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to production, inspection, and unredaction of specified documents already furnished in redacted form.
2. Whether the redaction of parts of the documents was justified by commercial sensitivity and customer confidentiality.
3. Whether the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving that unredacted documents are necessary for the fair disposal of the cause or matter under Order 31, rule 18.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of most of the relevant documents but contends that the redacted versions are "deficient".
• The Plaintiff seeks unredacted copies to assist in the proper presentation of his case.
• The Plaintiff challenges some of the terms and definitions contained in the documents provided.
• The Plaintiff seeks production and inspection of a "Copy Supporting Power of Attorney Document for Form 56," although the precise nature of this request is unclear.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Defendants deny that the security documents were procured or completed in breach of law.
• They assert that redactions were necessary for reasons of commercial sensitivity and customer confidentiality.
• The Defendants rely on established legal principles that permit redaction in loan portfolio sales and security documentation.
• The Defendants argue the Plaintiff, as a third party, has no entitlement to inspect behind the authority of persons executing Form 56 registered at the Land Registry.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the legal test under Order 31, rule 18, which requires the applicant to demonstrate that production and inspection of documents is necessary for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or for saving costs. The Plaintiff had already been furnished with most relevant documents but sought unredacted versions, alleging deficiency without identifying any specific basis or prejudice resulting from redactions.

The court found that redactions were justified on grounds of commercial sensitivity and customer confidentiality, consistent with established case law. The Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate why unredacted documents were necessary meant that he did not discharge the onus of proof required to obtain such relief.

The Plaintiff's request was characterized as a "fishing expedition" aimed at discovering whether a cause of action might exist rather than a legitimate need for fair disposal of the proceedings. The court emphasized that challenges to the content and provisions of the documents were matters for the substantive hearing, not for discovery or inspection applications.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Plaintiff's application for production, inspection, and unredaction of the specified documents.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff will proceed without access to unredacted versions of the documents sought. The decision does not set new precedent but reaffirms established principles regarding document redaction for commercial sensitivity and the requirements for discovery applications under Order 31, rule 18.