The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment v Black & Ors
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Kelly |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NIMaster 1 |
| Court | High Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 26 January 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2012] NIMaster 1
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 26/01/12
(subject to editorial corrections)
2010/146713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
CHANCERY DIVISION (COMPANIES)
----------
IN THE MATTER OF THE PRESBYTERIAN MUTUAL SOCIETY LIMITED
IN ADMINISTRATION
and
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANY DIRECTORS DISQUALIFICATION
(NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 2002
BETWEEN:
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE, TRADE & INVESTMENT
Applicant;
and
(1) PHILIP BLACK
(2) DAVID JAMES CLEMENTS
(3) DAVID McCONAGHY
(4) ALBERT McCORMICK
(5) SAMUEL SIDLOW McFARLAND
(6) DAVID HENRY COLIN FERGSUON
Respondents.
----------
MASTER KELLY
[1] On 14th November 2011, the court heard an application for discovery
brought by the above Respondents pursuant to Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court (NI) 1980, in the course of Disqualification proceedings issued against
them by the Applicant. The Disqualification proceedings commenced by way of
2
Originating Summons grounded on the affidavit of Mr David Bell, a Senior Examiner
within the Applicant Department. In his affidavit, Mr Bell alleges that the
Respondents are unfit to be involved in the management of a company and on behalf
of the Applicant, seeks disqualification orders are made by the court against them.
However, the Respondents are not prepared to file replying affidavits in defence of
the disqualification proceedings prior to the Applicant providing discovery. The
reasons for this will be dealt with in detail later.
[2] The Applicant was resisting the application for discovery on two main
grounds. The first was that it was not its practice to provide discovery prior to the
filing of a replying affidavit. It therefore contended that the Respondents’ application
was premature. The second ground was that the documents sought were either subject
to legal privilege or part of a “fishing expedition”. The second ground appears to be
the primary basis for resisting the application as it would arise at whatever stage
discovery was sought.
[3] The Applicant was represented by Mr Michael Humphries BL instructed by
the Departmental Solicitors. The first and second Respondents were represented by
Dr Tony McGleenan QC instructed by Kennedys Belfast LLP. The third, fourth and
fifth Respondents were represented by Mr David Dunlop BL instructed by Napier &
Sons Solicitors and the sixth Respondent was represented by Mr Chris Ringland BL
instructed by Thompson Mitchell Solicitors. The hearing of the application was
relatively short and as a consequence, the arguments of the parties were reasonably
succinct. This judgment is reflective of that fact.
To continue reading
Request your trial