Comcast International Holdings Incorporated and Ors v Minister For Public Enterprise and Ors, Persona Digital Telephony Limited and Anor v Minister For Public Enterprise and Ors

THE HIGH COURT [2025] IEHC 767 Record No: 2001/ 15119 P 2001/ 9288 P BETWEEN: COMCAST INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, DECLAN GANLEY, GANLEY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND GCI LIMITED PLAINTIFFS AND THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISE, MICHAEL LOWRY, ESAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, DENIS O’BRIEN, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANTS THE HIGH COURT Record No: 2001 / 9223 P BETWEEN: PERSONA DIGITAL TELEPHONY LIMITED AND ROCKABILL WIRELESS LIMITED PLAINTIFFS AND MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DENIS O’BRIEN DEFENDANTS AND MICHAEL LOWRY THIRD PARTY RULING of Ms. Justice Egan delivered on the 2nd Day of December 2025 Very shortly after delivering this ruling, I will circulate to the parties a list of directions which will be incorporated into an order of this court. As will be apparent, the list of directions seeks to address the principal issues upon which the parties addressed the court on 18th November 2025. 1. The first principal issue arising is whether this court either can or should now set a timetable up to and including the allocation of a trial date. The Persona plaintiffs are strongly pushing for a trial date. Persona resists the interposition of any further interlocutory hearings, or indeed of any order that their proceedings are heard in tandem with the Ganley proceedings, if same will result in appreciable delay in the listing of the Persona proceedings. The State defendants (“the State”) point out, in support of their argument that the Persona and Ganley cases should be heard in tandem, that several of its factual witnesses are of advancing years or in declining health. Bearing in mind that 30 years have passed since the events giving rise to these proceedings, this is unsurprising. Indeed, it is also likely to be the position in respect of several of the factual witnesses of the other parties in both sets of proceedings. Therefore, not only is there a public interest in these important proceedings being heard and determined, there is also a practical urgency in bringing these matters to trial as soon as possible. However, although the Persona proceedings are at an advanced stage, there are still a considerable number of steps which are required to be taken by the parties to that action before it is ready for trial. A fortiori, this is also the position in respect of the Ganley proceedings. If the Persona and Ganley proceedings are to be heard in tandem, one cannot at this remove predict the date by which all of the necessary pre-trial matters will be concluded. Nor can one predict the likely time required to be allocated to either trial. Indeed, this is by no means solely due to the various interlocutory matters already raised by the defendants. Other matters remain to be addressed. For example, the parties have not yet explored whether these cases should proceed by way of unitary trial or whether liability and quantum should be tried separately on a modular basis. By way of further example, the parties in both actions have not yet begun to discuss either the list of witnesses which they intend to call or the likely hearing schedule of the proceedings themselves. It would therefore be premature to list either matter for trial at this point. However, there is a strong public interest, fortified by considerations of practical necessity such as aging witnesses, in ensuring that these trials proceed as soon as possible, consistent with the rights of the parties to a fair trial. It is therefore essential that all parties conduct these two pieces of litigation in a manner designed to ensure that these cases can be brought to trial as soon as possible. This imperative informs my approach to the other issues upon which directions have been sought and to my case management timetable to be circulated immediately after this ruling. 2. The second principal issue arising is whether, in setting out a timetable to trial, this court ought to make specific allowance for various interlocutory hearings in respect of a range of potential issues highlighted by the defendant. The grounds and arguments for and against these potential interlocutory applications have thus far been addressed in only the most broad strokes. As such, it is not possible to express a view on the substantive merits of any such applications at this time. However, as a matter of efficient case management and in light of the public interest in ensuring that these trials proceed as soon as possible, the court must be cautious about inserting interlocutory hearings into the trial timetable unless they are genuinely necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to promote the timely, smooth and efficient running of the trials. These considerations have informed my approach to the various interlocutory applications contemplated by the defendants in both sets of proceedings which I will now consider in turn. 2 a) Some, if not all of the defendants in the Ganley proceedings contemplate applications for, it appears, further and better discovery, to address contended for shortcomings in the affidavits of discovery sworn by the Ganley plaintiffs. This court directed that any motions in relation to discovery would be issued by 31 July 2024. It is not clear whether the shortcomings contended for by the defendants relate to the affidavit of discovery sworn by the Ganley plaintiffs prior to 31 July 2024. If so, then the defendants must persuade this court that they should now be permitted to bring further applications in respect of such discovery. I appreciate, of course, that some of the issues raised by the defendants in relation to the Ganley discovery have gained new significance in the wake of the decision by Comcast International Holdings Incorporated to withdraw from the proceedings. However, this decision was announced in May 2025 and there has been considerable delay since that time. The court therefore remains to be convinced that a further motion in relation to the Ganley discovery is appropriate. The position may be different in relation to the supplemental affidavit sworn by Mr. Ganley on 29 July 2025. However, I will express no further view on this for the moment. If the defendants wish to further pursue the Ganley discovery as an interlocutory matter, any motion issued on 18 December 2025 ought, as a preliminary matter, seek leave of the court to issue the relevant motion for further and better discovery (or other relief as appropriate). The grounding affidavit should explain the defendants’ delay in so applying and establish that such application is properly brought in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts and with the prior directions of this court. As contemplated by the parties, I direct that any such motion should be issued no later than 18 December 2025. Needless to say, I also encourage the parties to attempt to reach agreement prior to that time, which may involve the Ganley plaintiffs furnishing a further affidavit of discovery on a without prejudice basis. I note in this regard that both the Ganley plaintiffs and Mr. Lowry have expressed their intention to continue to liaise through their respective counsel in an effort to resolve the issues arising. Needless to say, I would encourage the other defendants to adopt a similar approach and, if possible, to resolve the issues arising without the need for a further motion. 2 b) The defendants in the Ganley proceedings contemplate an application for, it appears, trial of a preliminary issue of law, on the question of whether the Ganley plaintiffs lack locus standi to proceed with their claim. Any such application has the potential to delay the trial of the Ganley proceedings and, if same are to be heard in tandem, the Persona proceedings (as to which see below). At present, it is not possible to speculate as to whether or not the standing issue is suitable for trial as a preliminary issue of law. Same can of course only be tried in the context of agreed or established facts, where no evidence is needed and no further information is required and where it is possible to resolve the standing issue without reference to the wider factual matrix within which that issue arises. The directions set out below allow for the hearing of a motion for leave to issue a motion for trial of a preliminary issue of law in respect of the standing issue. The position in this regard should become clear in around April or May 2026. This will inform the decision to be made as to whether the Persona and Ganley cases should be heard in tandem (as to which see below) and as to the appropriate timetable towards trial and trial date. 2 c) The State has indicated an intention to bring an application for directions that “the Persona and Ganley cases be heard in tandem with [the] State witnesses of fact on the issue of liability only being required to give evidence once (although subject to separate cross-examination by the plaintiffs).” The Ganley plaintiffs and the other defendants in both actions are broadly supportive of any such application. The Persona plaintiffs have indicated that they will strongly resist any such application if same would result in appreciable delay in bringing their action to trial. On the State’s estimate it is anticipated that the Ganley proceedings will be ready for trial no longer than 6 to 8 months after the Persona proceedings. If this were to transpire to be correct, then the obvious savings to be made in terms of court time and costs if the two actions were to be heard in tandem would weigh heavily in favour of an order that they proceed in tandem. It must be acknowledged that an order that the Persona and Ganley cases are heard in tandem has the potential to delay the Persona proceedings by a significant period. As pointed out by senior counsel for the Ganley plaintiffs and by senior counsel for the Persona plaintiffs, such delay will be increased in the event that either side appeals the High Court’s procedural or substantive rulings on the preliminary issue of law concerning the standing of the Ganley plaintiffs. On the other hand, even leaving aside the savings to be garnered in costs and court time, it is in principle undesirable that broadly similar allegations of corruption against the same defendants should be heard and determined in two different cases at two different times and potentially even by two different judges. If the parties are not in agreement that the Persona and Ganley cases should be heard in tandem, then it will be necessary for the court to adjudicate upon any such application. To inform such adjudication, it will be necessary for the State (or any other party making or supporting the application) to identify its relevant factual witnesses, to indicate the approximate likely length of their evidence and to outline any potential for such testimony to become unavailable with the passage of time. Although for the moment, the parties should not assume that the matters will proceed in tandem, it is nonetheless essential that the parties in the Ganley proceedings, particularly those arguing in favour of the two cases being heard in tandem, should proceed with their trial preparations in a manner which as closely as possible mirrors the timeframe that I have adjudged to be reasonable for the Persona proceedings and which form the basis for this court’s directions. 2 d) The State has indicated an intention to bring an application that certain of the Persona plaintiffs’ expert reports (or portions of those reports) are inadmissible on the grounds that they concern errors of process or are directed towards a challenge on ordinary public procurement grounds and do not therefore fall within the narrow basis on which the actions were permitted to proceed and on which the pleadings were permitted to be amended by the Court of Appeal in Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v. Minister for Public Enterprise [2019] IECA 360. It is not possible to express a concluded view on this matter without sight of the relevant expert reports, the motion papers and Persona’s responses thereto. However, there is a strong argument to be made that decisions as to the admissibility of expert evidence are more properly made in the course of trial or at the conclusion of trial. For the moment, therefore, I make no allowance for any such motions in the timetable to trial of either action. 2 e) The State defendants have indicated an intention to bring an application in relation to any dispute that might emerge between the parties as to the statement of uncontroverted facts to be drafted by the Persona plaintiffs. I accept the argument of the Persona plaintiffs that such an application is unnecessary. The parties will either be in a position to agree a statement of uncontroverted facts or they will not. I cannot see how the court can impose agreement upon any party. 2 f) The Persona plaintiffs have suggested a “Bula/ Fyffes” (Bula Ltd (In Receivership) v. Tara Mines Ltd [1997] IEHC 202 and Fyffes v. DCC [2005] IEHC 477) arrangement in respect of the receivability and admissibility of discovery documentation. I note that the parties have each agreed to engage further in relation to this matter. For the moment, I will make no allowance in respect of same in the trial timetable, save for facilitating a for mention listing. THE HIGH COURT Record No: 2001/ 9223 P BETWEEN: PERSONA DIGITAL TELEPHONY LIMITED AND ROCKABILL WIRELESS LIMITED PLAINTIFFS AND MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DENIS O’BRIEN DEFENDANTS AND MICHAEL LOWRY THIRD PARTY Directions of Ms. Justice Egan delivered on the 2nd Day of December 2025 1. 8 December 2025: State defendants and O’Brien defendants to respond to the Persona plaintiffs in relation to Bula/Fyffes agreement. 2. 19 December 2025 to 6 March 2026: The parties to conclude their correspondence in relation to the Bula/Fyffes agreement with a view to reaching an agreement mirroring any such agreement reached in the Ganley proceedings. 3. 19 December 2025 to 13 February 2026: The parties to correspond in relation to whether the Persona and Ganley proceedings should be heard in tandem with a view to reaching an agreement on this if possible, mirroring any such agreement reached in the Ganley proceedings. The parties to also correspond in relation to whether all documents provided on discovery by any particular party, or by all parties as appropriate, in the Persona or Ganley cases respectively, should be furnished to the parties in the other sets of proceedings and, if so, on what terms. 4. 19 December 2025 to 13 February 2026: The parties to correspond in relation to whether this trial is to proceed as a unitary trial or by way of a modular trial with separate liability and quantum modules. The parties ought to attempt to reach an agreement mirroring any such agreement reached in the Ganley proceedings. 5. 19 December 2025 to 13 February 2026: The parties to correspond identifying the factual and expert witnesses that each proposes to call, the likely hearing schedule and the possibility of dovetailing the anticipated hearing schedule with that applying to the Ganley proceedings. 6. Date to be assigned in February 2026: Directions hearing to be agreed in relation to issues at 2 to 5 above. 7. 13 February 2026: Any party so applying to issue any motion seeking an order that the Persona and Ganley cases be heard in tandem. Any party so applying should identify their witness of fact on liability, indicating how long their evidence is expected to take and whether such testimony may become unavailable with the passage of time. Any such application to outline trial efficiencies that are contemplated to arise in the event of such an order. Such motion to be on notice to the parties in the Ganley action. 8. 27 February 2026: The Persona plaintiffs to swear replying affidavits in respect of any such motions at 7 above. 9. March 2026: Hearing of the motion that the Persona and Ganley proceedings be heard in tandem. 10. 13 April 2026: The plaintiff to deliver proposed statement of uncontroverted facts. 11. March to May 2026: Judgment in respect of the motion at 7 above -i.e. the motion that the Persona and Ganley proceedings be heard in tandem. 12. 1 May 2026: The defendants to respond to the Persona plaintiffs’ statement of uncontroverted facts. 13. Should the High Court decide that the Ganley locus standi issue is to be heard and determined as a preliminary issue of law and should the Court also decide that the two proceedings shall be heard in tandem, then the Court will, on the application of any party in the Persona action, determine whether the trial timetable below should be altered. Unless and until such an application is brought, the parties in the Persona action ought to proceed on the understanding that the timetable set out below should be adhered to. Any such application to be made on notice to the Ganley parties. 14. 3 June 2026: Persona plaintiffs to deliver witness statements and expert reports on liability/quantum as appropriate. 15. 15 July 2026: The defendants to deliver witness statements and expert reports on liability/quantum as appropriate in the Persona action. 16. 15 September 2026: Persona plaintiffs to deliver rebuttal witness statements and expert reports on liability/quantum as appropriate. 17. 1 October to 8 October 2026: Meeting of experts on liability/quantum as appropriate. 18. 9 November 2026: Joint expert memoranda on liability/quantum as appropriate. 19. 21 December 2026: The plaintiffs to deliver written submissions on liability/quantum as appropriate (Max 20,000 words). 20. 15 February 2027: The defendants to deliver written submissions on liability/quantum as appropriate (Max 20,000 words). 21. Hilary/Whit 2027: Hearing date not yet assigned. 22. Liberty to apply. THE HIGH COURT Record No: 2001/ 15119P 2001/ 9288 P BETWEEN: COMCAST INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, DECLAN GANLEY, GANLEY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND GCI LIMITED PLAINTIFFS AND THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISE, MICHAEL LOWRY, ESAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, DENIS O’BRIEN, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANTS Directions of Ms. Justice Egan delivered on the 2nd Day of December 2025 1. 5 December 2025: The Ganley plaintiffs to reply to letter from Michael Lowry of 1 December 2025 in relation to plaintiffs’ discovery. 2. 12 December 2025: Delivery of draft amended plenary summons and statement of claim by the Ganley plaintiffs. 3. 18 December 2025: Michael Lowry, the State and Denis O’Brien to issue any motion for further and better discovery (or other relief as appropriate) regarding the Ganley plaintiffs’ discovery. If it is proposed to raise any issues or seek any orders in respect of any affidavit of discovery delivered by the Ganley plaintiffs prior to 31 July 2024 (by which date the court had directed that any motions in relation to discovery would be issued), the defendants should, in the first instance (and in the same motion), seek leave of the court to issue such an application. The grounding affidavit should explain the defendants’ delay in so applying and should satisfy the court that such application is properly brought in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts and with the directions of this Court. 4. 19 December 2025 to 13 February 2026: The parties to correspond in relation to whether the Ganley and Persona proceedings should be heard in tandem with a view to reaching an agreement on this if possible, mirroring any such agreement reached in the Persona proceedings. The parties to also correspond in relation to whether all documents provided on discovery by any particular party, or by all parties as appropriate, in the Ganley or Persona cases respectively should be furnished to the parties in the other sets of proceedings and, if so, on what terms. 5. 19 December 2025 to 13 February 2026: The parties to correspond in relation to whether this trial is to proceed as a unitary trial or by way of a modular trial with separate liability and quantum modules. The parties ought to attempt to reach an agreement mirroring any such agreement reached in the Persona proceedings. 6. 19 December 2025 to 13 February 2026: The parties to correspond identifying the factual and expert witnesses that each proposes to call, the likely hearing schedule and the possibility of dovetailing the anticipated hearing schedule with that applying to the Persona proceedings. 7. 12 January 2026: The Ganley plaintiffs to swear any replying affidavit, or any affidavit of discovery in respect of the defendants’ motions at 3 above for leave to apply for further and better discovery and/ or for further and better discovery. 8. 20 January 2026: Hearing of motion at 3 above if required. 9. 30 January 2026: The defendants to deliver amended defences. 10. 13 February 2026: The State defendants to deliver a supplemental affidavit of discovery to the Ganley plaintiffs. 11. 13 February 2026 to 6 March 2026: The parties to correspond in relation to Bula/Fyffes agreement with a view to reaching an agreement mirroring any such agreement reached in the Persona proceedings. 12. Date to be assigned in February 2026: Directions hearing in relation to issues at 3 to 6 above and in relation to motions at 13 and 14 below. 13. 13 February 2026: The defendants to issue any application for trial of a preliminary issue of law in respect of the Ganley plaintiffs’ locus standi. 14. 13 February 2026: Any party so applying to issue any motion seeking an order that the Ganley and Persona cases would be heard in tandem. Any party so applying should identify their witnesses of fact on liability, indicating how long their evidence is expected to take and whether such testimony may become unavailable with the passage of time. Any such application to outline trial efficiencies which are contemplated to arise in the event of such an order. Such motion to be on notice to the parties in the Persona action. 15. 27 February 2026: The Ganley plaintiffs to swear replying affidavit in respect of any such motions at 13 and 14 above. 16. March 2026: Hearing of defendants’ motion at 13 above for trial of a preliminary issue of law in respect of the Ganley plaintiffs’ locus standi and of the motion at 14 above that the Ganley and Persona proceedings be heard in tandem. 17. 13 April 2026: The plaintiff to deliver proposed statement of uncontroverted facts. 18. March to May 2026: Judgment in respect of motions at 13 and 14 above in respect of the application for trial of a preliminary issue and of the application that the Ganley and Persona proceedings would be heard in tandem. 19. 1 May 2026: The defendants to respond to the Ganley plaintiffs’ statement of uncontroverted facts. 20. Should the High Court decide that the Ganley locus standi issue is to be heard and determined as a preliminary issue of law and should the Court also decide that the two proceedings shall be heard in tandem, then the Court will, on the application of any party in the Ganley action, determine whether the trial timetable below should be altered. Unless and until such an application is brought, the parties ought to proceed on the understanding that the timetable set out below should be adhered to. Any such application is to be made on notice to the Persona parties. 21. 3 June 2026: The Ganley plaintiffs to deliver witness statements and expert reports on liability and quantum (as appropriate) by this date. 22. 15 July 2026 The defendants to deliver witness statements and expert reports on liability and quantum (as appropriate) by this date. 23. 15 September 2026: The Ganley plaintiffs to deliver rebuttal witness statements and expert reports on liability and quantum (as appropriate) by this date. 24. 1 October to 8 October 2026: Meeting of experts on liability/quantum as appropriate. 25. 9 November 2026: Joint expert memoranda on liability/quantum as appropriate. 26. 21 December 2026: The Ganley plaintiffs to deliver written submissions on liability/quantum as appropriate (Max 20,000 words) by this date. 27. 15 February 2027: The defendants to deliver written submissions on liability/quantum as appropriate (Max 20,000 words) by this date. 28. Hilary/Whit 2027: Hearing date not yet assigned. 29. Liberty to apply.