Persona Digital Telephony Ltd & Anor v Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This ruling concerns an application to correct an alleged factual error in a prior judgment delivered on 27th January 2025 ("the principal judgment"). The principal judgment addressed the plaintiffs' application for further and better discovery of documents subject to an agreed court order from 4th May 2023. The fourth named defendant had refused discovery of certain documents on the basis that they were provided confidentially by a Tribunal of Inquiry. The court had engaged in a balancing exercise between the public interest in preserving the Tribunal's confidentiality and the public interest in the proper administration of justice. The present application arises from the defendant's contention that a factual error was made in the principal judgment concerning the Tribunal's findings related to corruption in the award of a telecommunications licence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should correct an alleged factual error in its prior judgment concerning the Tribunal's findings on corruption related to the award of the GSM licence.
2. The scope of the court’s jurisdiction and applicable procedures for correcting clerical or factual errors in judgments pursuant to Order 28 rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and inherent jurisdiction.
3. The proper wording and scope of any correction to the judgment to reflect accurately the Tribunal's findings without altering the judgment’s overall meaning or outcome.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The first sentence of paragraph 87 of the principal judgment contains a factual error, incorrectly stating that the Tribunal concluded there was corruption at the highest level of politics affecting the GSM licence award.
• Order 28 rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts permits correction of clerical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions without appeal.
• The first sentence of paragraph 87 should be deleted as it emerged through inadvertent oversight.
• The paragraph would remain coherent and retain its import without the first sentence, so no replacement text is necessary.
• The court may also amend the judgment under its inherent jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The first sentence of paragraph 87 is not factually erroneous nor the result of inadvertence but a considered and accurate paraphrasing of the Tribunal's findings, particularly referencing paragraph 60.39 of the Tribunal’s Report.
• The court is entitled to paraphrase findings without expressly indicating it, especially where the paraphrase is manifest and obvious from context.
• Deletion of the first sentence is not appropriate as it encapsulates the gravity of the Tribunal’s inquiry and findings, which provide important context for the balancing exercise regarding discovery.
• Any concerns can be addressed by substituting the first sentence with a detailed summary of the Tribunal’s findings as provided by the Supreme Court in a prior case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the Tribunal did not make a formal finding of corruption related to the GSM licence award, which was undisputed. The first sentence of paragraph 87 in the principal judgment inaccurately stated otherwise. The court recognized its jurisdiction to correct such errors either under Order 28 rule 11 or its inherent jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed with the defendant’s proposal to delete the sentence entirely without replacement, as the sentence provided important contextual weight for the balancing exercise between confidentiality and justice. Instead, the court resolved to replace the inaccurate sentence with a detailed and accurate summary of the Tribunal’s findings as set out by the Supreme Court in Comcast. This approach preserves the paragraph’s coherence and the judgment’s integrity without altering its outcome.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the application to correct the factual error in the principal judgment by substituting the first sentence of paragraph 87 with an accurate summary of the Tribunal’s findings as provided by the Supreme Court in Comcast International Holdings Incorporated v. Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors.

This correction does not alter the overall meaning or effect of the principal judgment nor affect the outcome of the motion. The principal judgment as corrected will replace the previously published version on the Courts' website. No new precedent was established; the decision clarifies the court’s approach to correcting factual errors in judgments while maintaining contextual integrity.