O'Donnell v Saltan Properties Ltd & Ors (Approved)

McHUGH O�COFAIGH, MARK O�REILLY TRADING AS MARK O�REILLY AND ASSOCIATES AND MARK O�REILLY AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED

2.������ The plaintiff is the owner of an apartment at Riverwalk Court in Ratoath, County Meath.� It is situated in a development which was constructed in or around 2003/2004.� The appellant was the developer of the development.� The other defendants are contractors and professional advisors who were involved in the development.�

4.������ On 6 and 20 November 2019, the judge in charge of the case management of the proceedings heard motions for discovery which the parties had issued against each other, and a reserved judgment was delivered on 18 December 2019.� The trial judge, in large measure, refused the categories of discovery sought by the appellant against the plaintiff, and conversely awarded the plaintiff the discovery she sought against appellant.� The discovery was to be made by 30 April 2020.� The appellant has appealed those orders.

6.������ The motions are brought pursuant to s.52 of the Companies Act 2014 and O.86, r.9 RSC, as I have said.� It is common case that the rule applies to the application, but the appellant denies that s.52 of the Act of 2014 applies in circumstances where it is an insolvent defendant , not an impecunious plaintiff .� I shall consider the application first from the perspective of the Rules of the Superior Courts before, if necessary, considering the application pursuant to s.52 of the Act of 2014.�

�������������� �The Court of Appeal may under special circumstances direct that a deposit or other security in the amount fixed by the Court of Appeal be made or given for the costs to be occasioned by any appeal.�