Persona Digital Telelphony Ltd and Anor v Minister for Public Enterprise and Ors, Ganley and Ors v Minister for Public Enterprise and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

Judge Egan delivered a judgment on 19 June 2026 in three related proceedings arising from the 1995 competition for the State's second GSM mobile telephone licence. Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B (disappointed tenderers) allege they suffered damage from alleged corrupt interference in the licence competition. Trial was timetabled to commence in Hilary or Whit 2027. The judgment addresses two applications: (1) an application by the State Defendants for the three proceedings to be tried concurrently before the same judge ("trial in tandem") (made with the consent of the parties); and (2) an application by the State Defendants for a modular trial splitting liability (including causation and loss of opportunity) and quantum into separate modules ("module 1" and "module 2"). The modular-trial application is supported by the Individual Defendant and the Third Party and by Plaintiff B; Plaintiff A opposes modularisation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the related proceedings should be tried concurrently before the same judge (trial in tandem).
2. Whether the proceedings should be modularised with liability/causation/loss of opportunity determined in a preliminary module and quantum determined in a subsequent module.
3. How established case-management principles (including the tests in Cork Plastics, McCann, Donatex and related authorities) apply to an application to split liability and quantum in complex, long-running multi-party litigation.

Arguments of the Parties

State Defendants' Arguments

• Trial in tandem would promote just, expeditious and economical resolution, avoid inconsistent findings, prevent duplication and conserve resources.
• Modular trial (liability/causation/loss of opportunity at module 1; quantum at module 2) would save court time and parties' costs given the overall complexity and likely length of the proceedings.
• Causation and loss of opportunity should be included in module 1 so as to avoid tearing the fabric of the litigation.

Supporters of Modularisation (Individual Defendant, Third Party, Plaintiff B)

• Supported modular trial on grounds of efficiency, likely savings and insulation of parties/defendants from unnecessary quantum hearings.
• Agreed mechanisms to manage risk of delay from intermediate appeals (e.g. deferral of appeals on liability until after quantum in agreed circumstances).

Plaintiff A's Arguments

• Opposes modular trial; contends the court should assess relative durations and costs of modules and argues that a lengthy liability module relative to a shorter quantum module reduces the attractiveness of modularisation.
• Raised concerns about potential prejudice, delay and the need for full testing of quantum to facilitate settlement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Egan addressed the two applications sequentially.

Trial in tandem: The court exercised its inherent case-management jurisdiction to order concurrent trials where related proceedings share an identical factual matrix, common witnesses and documents, and overlapping legal issues. Citing Kalix and related authorities, the court found near-complete factual overlap between Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B proceedings, consent to tandem trial from the parties (with only limited reservation by Plaintiff A regarding delay), and concluded tandem hearing would avoid duplication, inconsistent findings, conserve resources, and serve the public interest. The court ordered a single hearing and anticipated further directions on trial modalities and a protocol prepared by the State Defendants.

Modular trial: The court applied established tests (Cork Plastics; McCann; Donatex) and considered the consolidated factors (logical division into modules; overlap of evidence; complexity and likely lengths of modules; savings in court time and costs; insulation of parties; risk of true prejudice; device/tactical use; disruption to pre-trial preparation; and appeal management).

Key findings in relation to modularisation:

• Initial uncertainty about boundaries (notably whether loss of opportunity belonged to liability or quantum) was resolved by the State Defendants' clarification that causation including loss of opportunity would be included in module 1; the court held loss of opportunity must be decided at module 1.
• Overlap of evidence: The court found overlap between liability and causation evidence but that, if both liability and causation/loss of chance are tried in module 1, overlap with quantum would be largely avoided because quantum is forward-looking and largely distinct in time and subject matter. Some experts/factual witnesses might be recalled for quantum, but substantial separation exists.
• Complexity and length: Both liability and quantum modules would be complex and lengthy; the court rejected a rule that modularisation be refused where the liability module is much longer than quantum. The court weighed absolute likely length of the quantum module and concluded even a six-to-eight week quantum hearing — and the risk that it would be unnecessary in 50% of cases — justified modularisation.
• Savings and prejudice: The court concluded modular trial would realistically save time and costs overall. No evidence of "true prejudice" to Plaintiff A was demonstrated; concerns about delay were held to be comparatively modest and manageable through case management measures.
• Appeal risk management: The court accepted that potential intermediate appeals could cause delay but noted case-management steps (including agreement by defendants not to appeal liability before quantum concludes) and other measures (deferring finality of liability orders) could mitigate that risk. The court also addressed locus standi issues in the Plaintiff B proceedings and ordered that Plaintiff B should defer any appeal on locus standi until final resolution unless parties agree otherwise, to avoid holding up the quantum module in related proceedings.

On balance, applying the identified principles and authorities, the court concluded modularisation was appropriate with module 1 to determine liability, causation and loss of opportunity, and module 2 to address quantum.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The court granted both applications: (a) ordered the three related proceedings to be tried concurrently before the same judge (trial in tandem); and (b) ordered a modular trial with liability, causation and loss of opportunity to be determined at Module 1 and quantum to be determined at Module 2.

Implications and direct effects:

• A single coordinated hearing will proceed, with directions to be given on sequencing of issues, witnesses, examination order, time division and document exchange; the State Defendants' draft trial protocol will inform those directions.
• The court attached a preliminary schedule dividing issues between Module 1 (preliminary and jurisdictional issues, existence/terms of contract, substantive wrongdoing allegations, State liability, causation and loss of chance, and related tender-process issues) and Module 2 (heads of loss, alternative valuation approaches, quantum-specific issues including methodology, date of assessment, remoteness, counterfactuals, unjust enrichment, interest, tender costs, and interaction between plaintiffs' claims).
• Plaintiff B was ordered to defer any appeal on the locus standi issue at the conclusion of Module 1 until the ultimate resolution of the proceedings unless all parties agree otherwise; parties agreed measures to manage potential appeals so as to minimise delay.
• The decision implements established case-management principles; it applies and reconciles existing authority rather than announcing a new legal principle.