In need of some quick advice? Need to know the next step you should take? Use Ask a Lawyer. This feature will connect you with a professional who can answer your legal questions on any topic.
Get Legal Tips offers the best of basic knowledge from professionals in the field of law from all over the country.
By: Mark Tottenham BL, on August 28th, 2013
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v. Quinn [2013] IEHC 388 (High Court, Kelly J, 10 July 2013)
High Court grants orders against defendants that they make further and better disclosure of documents sought by plaintiff in aid of Mareva-type injunctions, following admissions made on cross-examination that the defendants had only disclosed documents in their possession, but not in their power or procurement.
Ongoing litigation - defendants ordered in 2012 to disclose all assets wherever located - extension of time granted to provide disclosure on affidavit - application to cross-examine defendants on the contents of their affidavits - further affidavits sworn - further and better disclosure sought - general description of items sought refined to fourteen separate categories - whether any legal basis for granting reliefs sought - discovery and interrogatories in aid of Mareva injunction - basis of Mareva injunction - inherent jurisdiction of court to grant orders to ensure that Mareva injunction was effective - obligation on defendants to provide documents in their possession, but also in their power or procurement - understanding of defendants of their obligations as given in cross-examination - discussion between defendants as to which would disclose which documents - risk of deficient disclosure - employment contracts - salaries - operation of bank accounts - rent rolls - beneficial ownership of companies - accounts - meetings of company boards - practice of deleting electronic documents, including e-mails.
Quotation from judgment (courtesy of the Courts Service of Ireland):
“I have also made it clear that I am of the view that the legal advice tendered to the defendants and sworn to by them in their affidavits to the effect that the disclosure involved not merely documents in their possession but also those in their power and procurement was the correct interpretation. The testimony of the defendants does not convince me that they were ever of any different view. In many aspects the disclosure was substandard and failed to discharge the defendants’ obligations. Material in their procurement was in many instances not sought still less disclosed.”
Full Text on Court Services Website>
Key Cases Cited
House of Spring Gardens Limited & Ors v. Waite & Ors [1985] FSR 173
AJ Bekhor & Co. v. Bilton [1981] 2 All E.R. 565.
A. & Anor v. C. & Ors [1980] 2 All E.R. 347
Deutsche Bank v. Murtagh [1995] 2 I.R. 122