People Centre, INC [D/B/A Rippling] and Anor v O'Brien and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns Company A’s application for discovery from the Plaintiffs, issued on 8 April 2026. The application originally sought 17 categories of documents; the parties agreed 12 categories, leaving Categories 1, 3, 4, 10 and 17 for determination. [1][2][3][4]

The Plaintiffs’ proceedings concern alleged conduct by Defendant and Company A connected with an order made on 12 March 2025 to obtain and preserve evidence. The Plaintiffs allege that Company A participated in a scheme to frustrate that order and create a false narrative. Proceedings were also issued in the United States. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

The central discovery dispute was whether events before 14 March 2025, including the alleged espionage and provision of confidential information, were issues in the Irish proceedings. [12][13]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether events before 14 March 2025 constituted issues arising from the pleadings so as to justify discovery. [14][15]
2. Whether the documents sought in Categories 1, 3, 4, 10 and 17 were relevant to the pleaded issues and necessary for the fair and just resolution of the proceedings. [15][16][17][18]
3. What scope of discovery should be ordered for each disputed category. [19][20]

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

• The proceedings principally concern alleged frustration of a court order after 14 March 2025, not espionage or the alleged theft of confidential information. [21][22][23]
• Discovery must be directed to the pleaded issues, rather than everything mentioned in the statement of claim. [24][25]
• Company A had not advanced positive pleas concerning the earlier events and could not obtain discovery merely to attack Defendant’s credibility. [26][23][27][28]
• The Plaintiffs confirmed that they would not rely on events before 14 March 2025 or lead evidence about the alleged espionage. [29][30][31][32][33]

Company A’s Arguments

• The alleged earlier espionage was a foundational issue because, if it did not occur, there could be no subsequent scheme to frustrate the order or create a false narrative. [34][35][36][37]
• A denial in a defence puts the allegation in issue, and Company A was entitled to documents relevant to matters on which Defendant would be cross-examined. [38][39]
• The absence of relief specifically directed to the earlier conduct did not prevent that conduct from being a relevant factual issue. [40]
• Company A sought discovery concerning the alleged espionage, instructions to destroy evidence, communications with the Central Bank, statements made to the Court, and communications with legal advisers. [39][41]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that a denial generally puts an allegation on proof, and denied allegations that are necessary to establish a claim are ordinarily issues for trial. [45][46]

However, the Plaintiffs’ pleaded case was directed to events after 14 March 2025. They sought no relief concerning earlier events and expressly confirmed that they would not rely on the alleged espionage. A mere denial by Company A therefore did not convert those earlier events into issues requiring discovery. [14][33][47][48]

The Court distinguished between documents relevant to pleaded issues and documents sought solely to test Defendant’s credibility. Discovery could not be ordered for the latter purpose. Questions concerning the admissibility or scope of evidence at trial were matters for the trial judge. [49][50][18][51]

For Category 1, sub-categories 1–5 and 9–11 were too broad, irrelevant and unnecessary because they concerned the alleged earlier espionage. Discovery was allowed for sub-categories 6–8 and 12 by agreement. [52][53][54][55]

For Category 3, the Court allowed discovery concerning Defendant’s knowledge of, or internal concerns about, sanctioned payments. The other requests were speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition because Company A had not pleaded issues concerning the Plaintiffs’ general sanctions-compliance practices or the truth of Defendant’s allegations. [56][57][58][59]

For Category 4, discovery was allowed concerning the making of the alleged complaint to the Central Bank and communications between the Central Bank and Defendant. The remaining requests did not arise from the pleadings. [60][61][62]

For Category 10, the pleaded issue was whether Company A instructed Defendant to make allegedly false statements. The extensive request for health records was not warranted, particularly given its intrusive nature and the sensitivity of the information. [63][64][65][66]

For Category 17, the parties agreed that discovery would be given in the Plaintiffs’ proposed terms, with Company A retaining the ability to revisit sufficiency after the Plaintiffs particularised their loss. The Court approved that compromise. [67][68][69]

Holding and Implications

Discovery was allowed in part and refused in part. The Court ordered discovery for Category 1 sub-categories 6, 7, 8 and 12; the Plaintiffs’ proposed formulation for Category 3; Category 4 sub-categories 1 and 2; and the Plaintiffs’ proposed formulation for Category 17. All other requests in Categories 1, 3, 4 and 10 were refused. [19][20][70]

The parties were directed to agree the order. Any further issues concerning pleadings, particulars, evidence or cross-examination at trial were left for later determination. The decision directly determines the scope of discovery and does not establish a broader new precedent. [18][51][70]