BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. This matter comes before the Court as an appeal from an Order of the Master made on the 19th May 2000 whereby he ordered that the Defendants within six weeks make Discovery on oath of inter alia

2. The facts which are being alleged by the Plaintiff which give rise to this accident, insofar as is necessary to refer to them in this Application, are as follows: The Plaintiff claims that he was in the employment of the Defendants on the 8th July 1997 at their meat processing plant in Ballyhaunis, Co. Mayo.

3. He alleges that through the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty boiling matter and fat were caused or permitted to escape from a control gate in the ancillary pipe work in the premises which caused him to suffer serious burns and he claims damages for the personal injuries and loss which he sustained.

4. As the pre application correspondence in Discovery Motions is of importance it is necessary to set out this correspondence in some detail.

5. By letter of the 29th November 1999 the Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant’s solicitors asking them to make discovery of certain classes of documents. The relevant part of this letter is as follows:

6. The discovery which we require from your client is limited to the question of liability. We require discovery of all documents in your client’s possession which touch on in any way the issue of liability in this case and without prejudice to the generality of that request we require in particular the following;

7. By letter of the 7th February 2000 the Defendant’s solicitors replied in the following terms:

8. Yours faithfully,

9. The solicitor for the Plaintiffs replied to that letter in the following terms:

10. We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 7th inst., in relation to this matter. I note your refusal to make Discovery of the documents sought in our letter of the 29th November. We would have assumed that the reason why we required Discovery of these documents was self evident. Liability remains an issue in this case and obviously the documents which we have sought would assist both the Plaintiff and the court in seeking to determine the liability issue.

11. Yours faithfully,”

12. The Motion for Discovery was dated the 9th June 2000 and was based upon an Affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff’s solicitors on the 10th March 2000 exhibiting the foregoing correspondence. At the hearing the Master adjourned the case

13. The reason for requiring these documents is stated to be:

14. Counsel for the Defendant Mr. Clancy BL makes the following submissions objecting to the Order for Discovery and saying that the Master misdirected himself in allowing Discovery of the documents referred to in the latter part of paragraph (4) of his Order of the 19th May 2000.

15. Counsel’s first submission is that Statutory Instrument 223 of 1999 Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 2) (Discovery), 1999 and in particular subparagraph 4 of Order 31 Rule 12 specifically precludes the court from making an Order for Discovery unless:

16. Counsel submits that the letters written by the solicitor for the Plaintiff make no attempt to specify the precise category of documents nor is there any reason furnished why each category of document is required to be discovered. He says moreover no reasonable period of time for Discovery has been allowed.

17. Accordingly he submits that the Master had no power to make the Order.

18. Next Counsel submits that there is an obligation upon the Parties seeking the Order to file an Affidavit

19. Counsel submits that when the matter came before the Court the grounding Affidavit (of the 10th March 2000) failed to verify that the Discovery was necessary or that it would save costs and it failed to give reasons why each category was required to be discovered. He submits whereas the Supplemental Affidavit may have done this the Master misdirected himself in law and was wrong in not determining the issues that came before him and was wrong in adjourning the matter to enable the Defendant file a Supplemental Affidavit.

20. With regard to Counsel’s first point I am satisfied that the amendment to Order 31 Rule 12 was made for the purpose of addressing a problem which had given rise to delays and potential injustices over a number of years. A practice had

21. Accordingly I believe that Statutory Instrument 223 of 1999 imposed a clearly defined obligation upon a Party seeking Discovery to pinpoint the documents or category of documents required and required that Party to give the reasons why they were required. Blanket Discovery became a thing of the past. The new rule was brought into being to ensure in the first instance that the Party against whom Discovery was being sought would, upon receipt of the preliminary letter, be in a position to know the document or category of documents referred to and be able to exercise a judgment on whether the reasons given for requiring these documents to be discovered was valid. He would then be in a position to know if he was required to comply with the request. If he disputed his obligation to make Discovery the court would know by reference to this letter precisely why the Moving Party sought the documents in question and the grounds upon which the Moving Party believed

22. In my view if the letter of application does not comply with the rules then the issue is not identified and there is no power vested in the Master to make a determination on any issue. This is so even where an elaborate Affidavit is filed in support of the application. I am satisfied that in the particular circumstances in which this Statutory Instrument came into existence that the Master derives his jurisdiction to determine the issues which arise between the Parties from the identification of the issues in the Applicant’s originating letter or letters.

23. Turning to the present case I am satisfied that in as much as the Plaintiffs solicitor’s letter identifies the documents in question no better than describing than as “accident report book/record details” there has not been any effort made to specify the precise category of documents sought. The Master’s Order translates this into “accident report form and all documents relating to the reporting and investigation of the accident in which the Plaintiff was involved up to the 1st October 1997.” In my view this elaboration is not justified and I hold that there has been a failure on the part of the Plaintiff’s solicitor to specify the precise categories of documents sought in Discovery.

24. Moreover I am satisfied that there has been a failure on the part of the Plaintiff’s solicitors to furnish reasons why each of these categories is required to be discovered. In the original letter of the 29th November 1999 no effort was made to address this requirement. In the second letter after the problem has specifically brought to his notice by the solicitor for the Defendant, the solicitor for the Plaintiff merely replies that he would have assumed that the reasons why Discovery was sought was self evident “Liability remaining an issue in this case and obviously the documents which we have sought would assist both Counsel and the court in seeking to determine the liability issue.” In my view this does not amount to a compliance with the rules.

25. Turning next to Counsel’s second submission:

26. When this matter came before the Master the only Affidavit was that of the 10th March 2000 sworn by the Plaintiff’s solicitors. This Affidavit neither (a) verified that the Discovery of documents was necessary to dispose fairly of the cause or matter or to save costs or (b) furnish reasons why each category of documents was required.

27. Upon being advised of the shortcomings in his Affidavit the solicitor for the Plaintiff sought and obtained leave from the Master to file a Supplemental

28. Affidavit which in my view complies with the Order. I have no doubt it was within the Master’s jurisdiction to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a Supplemental Affidavit to enable him to comply with the Rules of Court. I see no obligation upon the Master to determine the issue on foot of the Affidavit then before him. Moreover it is in my view abundantly clear that if the interests and the saving of time and costs require that such an Order be made then the Master was correct to do so.

29. Counsel makes a third submission. It may be summarised as follows:

30. He submits that Order 31 Rule 12(2) provides that on the hearing of an application the Court may

31. Counsel submits that this is the limit of the Master’s jurisdiction and he may not adjourn the matter for the purpose of having a Supplemental Affidavit filed.

32. I am of opinion that there is vested in the Master an overall jurisdiction to adjourn the case if the interests of justice require that such an Order be made. His jurisdiction is not derived solely from the provisions of Sub-section 2 is an inherent jurisdiction vested in him.

33. It follows from the foregoing that the jurisdiction to make an Order for Discovery is confined to circumstances in which the Master is of the opinion that there has been a compliance by the Applicant with Order 34. 12(4)(l). On appeal to this court the jurisdiction is so limited. I am of the view that there has been a failure on the part of the Applicant to comply with the Orders and Rules and accordingly there is no jurisdiction vested in me to make the Order sought and I accordingly refuse the Application.