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. These are proceedings in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for personal injuries arising out of what was alleged to be the negligence and breach of statutory duty of the defendant. It is perhaps sufficient to say in relation to the case itself that it is quite clear that, if the injuries as pleaded are established and the defendant is held liable, this is indeed a serious case on damages.

2. Included in the particulars of special damage’ was an item described as loss of earnings continuing, not yet ascertained and continuing. It appears from

3. In the course of so doing, they sought further particulars of the loss of earnings and in response to their letters for particulars they were furnished by the plaintiff with accounts prepared, purporting to show the plaintiffs earnings for the relevant years. It was said that an accountant had submitted them to the Revenue, and that they had been agreed by an inspector on behalf of the Revenue as correctly representing the plaintiffs earnings for the years in questions. The defendant then sought copies of the plaintiffs tax returns for each of the relevant years and the plaintiff disputed the relevance of those to the proceedings. They said that they were not relevant to the proceedings. The defendant then brought a motion seeking on order that the plaintiff should within four weeks make discovery on oath of all documents, records and memoranda in respect of the plaintiffs income tax returns for the specified years and that order was made by the Master. The plaintiff was given four

4. There is undoubtedly, as I have said, an issue and a serious issue which arises as to damages in this case, and, in accordance with authorities which have been of long standing the defendant is entitled through the discovery machinery to inspect any documents in the possession of the plaintiff which are relevant to the issues in the proceedings and which have the effect of either affecting to its detriment the plaintiffs claim or advancing any defence that the defendant’s might claim to have and the defendant’s position on this motion is perfectly simply They say they have expressly confined their application for discovery to a limited category of documents. They have not asked the plaintiff to make discovery on a vast or oppressive scale, though sometimes parties have to do that that in the nature of the discovery machinery. They say that they have confined their application specifically to the documents relating to the income tax returns for the years in question, that having inspected them they may well be in a position to narrow any ground of dispute between them and the plaintiff as to the quantum of damages but that if there are discrepancies that appear to

5. In response Mr. McGahon urges that, since the defendants were furnished with the accounts and did not raise any particular queries on them and did not send in their accountant, as it were, to discuss the accounts with the plaintiffs accountant and either reach agreement or isolate points of difference, this application by the defendant is misconceived. Now, of course, parties may adopt any practice they wish by agreement between them as to how the particular claim may be dealt with and they may well take the view, that in this case, we should simply let the accountants get together and see can they work out any agreement as to what the figures are in this case. That is a matter for the parties of course. I am satisfied that it is no answer to the claim brought in this case because here the defendant is simply seeking to avail of the normal procedure of discovery in a very confined and limited way to specific documents which are unarguably relevant to the case because, of course, the documentation supporting the accounts and supporting the return to the Revenue Commissioners is quite essentially relevant material in proof of the plaintiffs claim for loss of earnings and it is as I have said and at the risk of repeating myself if anything in ease of the plaintiff, that the field of documents

6. I understand and I am sure everyone perfectly understands that income tax matters are undoubtedly confidential to the tax payer and the Revenue. But when the parties come to litigate, the situation changes to that extent. The other party, if the tax returns relate to an issue in the proceedings and are in that sense relevant to the proceedings is clearly entitled to inspect them and make what use is appropriate from his point of view in his defence of the proceedings but for no other purpose. It has been said on more than one occasion in the High Court and in this court that parties may not make use of the discovery process for any purpose other than the litigation and that should and one hopes does go without saying. That appears to me to represent the law.

7. I am satisfied that the order for discovery originally granted by the Master was correct and I would allow the appeal and restore the order of the Master.