High Court: Production of documents ordered in alleged malicious prosecution case

By Gillian O'Hanlon BL, case reporter

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley explained: “The balancing exercise involved in this review is fact dependent and absent clear examples of privilege, the more important the material is relevant to the proper disposition of these proceedings, the greater the case is for production…”

Background

The plaintiff alleged that she was out socialising in February 2011 at O’Reilly’s Bar on Tara Street in Dublin and was assaulted by a doorman, causing her to suffer personal injuries. The plaintiff issued proceedings seeking damages, including damages for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff asserted that she subsequently attended Pearse Street Garda station and reported the alleged assault to the third defendant, who purportedly maliciously, falsely and untruthfully informed her that CCTV coverage revealed that she had attacked the doorman.

The plaintiff claimed that a decision was made to prosecute her, which was subsequently withdrawn by the DPP. A prosecution was also pursued against the doorman.

The plaintiff’s case centred around inter alia the decision to prosecute her and the subsequent withdrawal of the prosecution, and she contended that the communications between the DPP and the third defendant were fundamentally relevant to her case and necessary to establish whether there was an ulterior motive to prosecute her and to what extent the DPP was involved in that decision. 

Discovery

In 2016, the High Court granted an order of discovery in favour of the plaintiff which included documents relating to the plaintiff’s attendances at Pearse Street Garda station, communications between the first and/or third defendants with the DPP, and documents relating to the prosecutions of the plaintiff and the doorman up to and including the abandonment of the prosecutions.

In her motion for further and better discovery and inspection, the plaintiff challenged assertions of public interest privilege and legal advice privilege made by the defendants over eighteen documents and a claim of public interest privilege over the PULSE record sought.

The plaintiff argued that the documentation, which was comprised mostly of communications between the DPP and the gardaí and reports from gardaí to the DPP, would in normal course be privileged but that in circumstances where her claim was centred on malicious prosecution, the documents were required to be disclosed and produced.

The defendants alleged that it was in the public interest to protect documents from disclosure where the proper functioning of the gardaí and the DPP could be adversely affected by disclosure.

The High Court

Mr Justice Bradley set out the relevant jurisprudence, explaining that insofar as public interest privilege was concerned, he was required to balance the public interest in the proper administration of justice (being the plaintiff’s damages claim) against the defendants’ arguments for the non-production of the documentation rely principally on the public interest in the prevention and prosecution of crime.

In the circumstances, Mr Justice Bradley considered that it was a case which required his inspection of the documents in order to balance the competing interests of the parties, and in that regard, he adopted the approach of the court in Nic Gibb v. The Minister for Justice & Ors [2013] IEHC 238.

The judge also highlighted that the nature of the proceedings, the claims made and the central argument that the documentation was needed to address the ingredients of the alleged tort of malicious prosecution were additional factors which he had considered.

Having inspected the documents, the court determined that document 92, being a report from the third defendant which inter alia described receiving a complaint from the plaintiff that she had been assaulted and made recommendations, should be produced to the plaintiff with redactions to personal information.

Document 93, being a further report agreeing with the report in document 92, was also directed to be produced for the same reason and with similar redactions.

In respect of document 95, being a communication between the third defendant and the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, Mr Justice Bradley considered that this was not a request for legal advice and simply listed material which had been furnished by the third defendant to the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and accordingly, that document was required to be produced to the plaintiff.

As to document 96, the court directed that the part thereof which contained an email from a Garda inspector to the third defendant expressing views on suitable charges and the summonses which were initially brought should be fully redacted, as the officer having overall charge of an investigation needed to be free to express his views without same being produced.

The court was satisfied that the production of documents 92, 93, 95 and the part of document 96 which did not require redaction would not involve the disclosure of confidential Garda sources, confidential intelligence gathering and investigation methods.

As to the remaining documents, which included inter alia the PULSE record and incident summary report in respect of the plaintiff, the DPP’s directions and reports made by the third defendant to the DPP, Mr Justice Bradley was satisfied that they were covered by legal advice and/or public interest privilege and should not be produced to the plaintiff.

In that regard, the court highlighted the public interest in the proper prosecution of criminal offences and found that production could inhibit communications from and between gardaí and the DPP and the ability of gardaí to furnish and submit reports to the DPP during an investigation, and would be injurious to the DPP’s ability to independently carry out her function.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court proposed to make an order for production of documents 92, 93, 95 and proposed to make an order that privilege applied to the documents directed not to be produced.

The High Court also indicated that the plaintiff was entitled to her costs.

Wolinska v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána & Ors [2025] IEHC 382

UN committee calls for fresh Irish referendum on ‘women’s life within the home’

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) today published the concluding observations of its eighth periodic review of Ireland.

The report welcomes a number of positive developments since the previous review in 2017, including new legislation on stalking, domestic violence leave, gender pay gap reporting, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, domestic violence and abortion.

However, it also notes a number of continuing areas of concern, as well as expressing “regret” at the failure of last year’s so-called care referendum.

The committee has called on the government to conduct an “independent evaluation of the referendum” and to “carry out information campaigns on the negative reinforcement by Article 41.2 of gender stereotypes about women’s roles in the home”.

It goes on to say that the government should “undertake inclusive public consultations to find alternative wording with a view to holding another constitutional referendum on amending Article 41.2 of the Constitution to remove the stereotypical language on the role of women in the home”.

Beyond this, the committee has called for an expansion of access to civil legal aid, saying the existing rules create “systemic barriers to women’s access to justice”.

Welcoming the report, children, disability and equality minister Norma Foley said: “Ireland is firm in our commitment to international law and to multilateralism.

“We recognise the importance of having the UN treaty bodies, like CEDAW, hold states to account and greatly value the constructive engagement that takes place as result.

“We welcome the committee’s acknowledgment of the progress achieved in Ireland on gender equality since our previous CEDAW review in 2017 and acknowledge that more needs to be done.”

Fewer cancelled court hearings following appointment of extra judges

The Courts Service this morning published its annual report for 2024, which sets out information on cases which came before the courts last year as well as the impact of modernisation initiatives.

Writing in the foreword, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, a judge of the Supreme Court and chair of the Courts Service board, said extra judges had led to “increased cases and/or reduced waiting/processing times”.

“However, the Courts Service board is aware, particularly in light of the feedback from the Healthy Place to Work survey, and from executive and judicial members directly, of the increased pressure placed on staff,” she added.

“The combination of new legislation, increased caseload, and extra judges as well as the ambitious modernisation programme of change is stretching the existing staff complement.

“The Courts Service board commends the resilience of the staff to manage the extra workload in the absence of sufficient staffing resources.”

Angela Denning, the Courts Service’s CEO, thanked the judiciary, justice sector partners, the government and court users for their support during the process of modernisation.

“In 2025, modernisation promises to bring more tangible benefits for the user and a courts system of which we can all be proud — and for that we will need your continued support,” she noted.

Significant achievements in 2024 include that 165 courtrooms are now equipped with video technology and 95 per cent of charge sheets are now processed electronically.

There were 390,158 new criminal matters presented to the courts in 2024, an increase of 6.3 per cent on the previous year. Some 356,045 cases were finalised, an increase of 5.2 per cent.

New civil cases across all courts totalled almost 184,000, having increased by 31 per cent over four years, while 148,120 were completed, 11,000 more than two years previously.

BHSM expands employment and benefits department

Ms Hill completed her training in a commercial law firm in Cork City and recently qualified as a solicitor in January 2025.

She has experience advising employers and employees in both contentious and non-contentious employment law matters.

Having worked with both domestic and multinational companies, education and training boards and hotel groups, Ms Hill has experience advising on a variety of workplace employment issues.

She is experienced in advising on employment law disputes that come before the Workplace Relations Commission and regularly advises employers and employees on redundancy processes and general employment grievances and disputes.

Mark Homan, managing partner at BHSM LLP, said: “Leanne has been a great addition to the firm. She has integrated well and has a very bright future at BHSM.”

Richard Lee, partner and head of employment and benefits, added: “We are delighted to welcome Leanne to BHSM as we expand our team and provide our growing client base with employment law support and guidance.

“I wish Leanne every success in her career with BHSM.”

Mary Robinson awarded honorary doctorate by Strathclyde

Mrs Robinson received the honour during Strathclyde Law School’s summer graduation ceremony, in recognition of her lifetime commitment to defending the rights of marginalised communities and championing ethical responses to global climate challenges.

Throughout her impressive career, Mrs Robinson has positioned climate justice as a core human rights issue, emphasising the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation on vulnerable populations.

As a former United Nations high commissioner for human rights and a founding member and past chair of The Elders, she continues to advocate for bold, inclusive solutions to global inequality.

Stuart Kelly, deputy head of Strathclyde Law School, said: “Mary Robinson exemplifies what it means to be a courageous and principled leader.

“Her dedication to human rights and her unwavering voice for climate justice resonate deeply with our mission at Strathclyde as a socially progressive institution.”

Competition law warning issued to Irish motor industry

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) today published an eight-page letter which has been sent to a number of businesses in the sector.

The letter reminds business that, under competition law, consumers must not be prevented from freely choosing who services or repairs their vehicle, or what parts they use.

The warning follows reports from motorists who have been prevented or discouraged from getting their vehicles serviced or repaired by independent garages.

In some cases, motorists claim to have been told that their warranty will be void if they have their vehicle serviced or repaired outside an authorised dealership network or use non-original or non-manufacturer supplied spare parts.

Others claim to have been blocked from using independent garages due to restricted access to essential diagnostic data or tools which were not made available by the manufacturer or distributor.

The CCPC has warned that these practices may breach competition law and can drive up prices, limit choice, and harm both consumers and independent garages.

The CCPC is seeking information from distributors of motor vehicles in Ireland and has urged them to review and, if necessary, amend any arrangements they have in place.

While formal proceedings “have not been instigated against any particular firm at the current time”, the CCPC has emphasised that it will take action if illegal practices are identified.

The CCPC has also informed independent garages of their right to freely repair vehicles, to use non-original spare parts which are of a matching quality, and to access repair and diagnostic tools.

Craig Whelan, director of antitrust at the CCPC, said: “Motorists must be free to choose where they service their vehicles and what parts they use without fear of losing their warranty. Independent garages must not be blocked from accessing essential diagnostic data or tools.  

“These restrictive practices hurt consumers, stifle competition, and unfairly advantage authorised dealerships.  

“We will continue to monitor this issue closely and will take appropriate enforcement action where we believe competition law has been breached.”

The CCPC is urging independent garages to report any experiences of unfair restrictions, including being prevented from accessing essential diagnostic data or tools.

Four law students complete Bar’s first internship programme

Greta Baronaite from ATU Letterkenny, Alvena Sharma from Trinity College Dublin, Lee Mac Cuinneagain from the University of Limerick and Michael White from University College Dublin took part in the two-week initiative.

The four interns were selected by the Bar’s university outreach committee from a pool of 32 nominees.

Following a successful pilot, supported by a number of practitioners, the Bar says it will offer the internship programme again next year.

Aoife Carroll SC, speaking on behalf of the Bar’s university outreach committee, said: “We were delighted to launch this pilot internship programme, which reflects our ongoing commitment to outreach and broadening access to the profession.

“This initiative offered a meaningful introduction to the Bar and the justice system for aspiring legal professionals.”

State pathologists see workload double in 10 years

The Office of the State Pathologist (OSP) said in its 2024 annual report that last year saw the highest number of State cases (i.e. criminal, suspicious or unusual deaths) in 10 years.

The OSP dealt with 394 cases in 2024, including 214 State cases, making up 54 per cent of the total.

There were visits to the scene of death in just three per cent of State cases, which is now rare “due to advanced technologies used by crime scene investigators”.

Chief State pathologist Professor Linda Mulligan said: “Something that will have a major impact on the OSP and national autopsy practice in general will be the reform of the coronial service which forms part of the new [programme for government].

“The establishment of a resourced, sustainable coronial autopsy service as part of this reform would serve to improve and strengthen the national forensic pathology service.

“The OSP will continue to drive change and growth through ongoing engagement with the Department of Justice, coroners, Department of Health, HSE and Faculty of Pathology RCPI and to provide advice and expertise as needed.”

Mills Selig announces charity partnership with Women’s Aid NI

The law firm has already begun fundraising, with the Mills Selig team enjoying an ‘Afternoon at the Races’ last month which raised over £1,000 for their new charity partner.

The Women’s Aid movement in Northern Ireland began in 1975 and is made up of eight local Women’s Aid groups and Women’s Aid Federation.

Each Women’s Aid group offers a range of specialist services to women, children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse, and all of these groups are members of Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland.

Women’s Aid’s mission is to challenge attitudes, structures and systems which perpetuate domestic abuse. Through its work, Women’s Aid seeks to enable women, children and young people to live free from abuse.

Over the coming year, Mills Selig will take part in a range of fundraising efforts and initiatives designed to shine a light on the issue of domestic abuse and support the frontline services provided by Women’s Aid Federation NI.

Kate McCandless, a solicitor with Mills Selig and member of the firm’s charity committee, said: “At Mills Selig we are proud to be supporting Women’s Aid — a charity whose work has never been more important.

“We are committed to doing our part to raise funds and help highlight the message about the reality of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland and beyond.

“As a firm with a majority-female board and team, we are proud to stand behind those providing vital support on the front line.”

Karen Devlin, membership services and support at Women’s Aid Federation, said: “Women’s Aid exists to challenge attitudes, structures and systems which perpetuate domestic abuse and violence against women and girls.

“We seek through our work to enable women, children and young people to live free from abuse.

“Our corporate partners play a significant role in not only helping raise funds to support our work, but raising awareness about our work.

“We are delighted to have this opportunity with Mills Selig supporting our work with women, children and young people affected by domestic abuse across NI.”

Not every dispute is mediation-ready – would you know?

The latter problem has been raised in particular by critics of Ireland’s obligation on solicitors to advise in relation to mediation before issuing legal proceedings, a point at which many disputants such as those, for example, in personal injury case, don’t even have enough information (medical reports etc.) to mediate effectively. Those situations are easy for a prospective mediator to spot though.

Less straightforward are those situations where the parties, the dispute, or the dynamic make the matter unsuitable for mediation. How does a mediator screen out these situations, particularly against a background of increasingly compulsory mediation, and the desire for mediation work?

Suitability screening plays a particularly significant role in the mediation of interpersonal disputes, especially in relationship breakdown; situations in which the mere instigation of mediation can, as evidenced by research, trigger an increase in interpersonal violence, mainly against women. 

Even less highly charged situations may not be suitable, and a range of tools and approaches are available to mediators to separate chaff from the grain. 

Buyer beware

It might be obvious, but ensure the parties know what they are signing up for, that is, the limitations of the mediation process. If they are looking for public admissions of responsibility for wrongdoing, or attributions of blame, mediation is not the right process. It is usually a better move to decline an appointment than proceed and end up with frustrated or angry parties who were seeking vindication or other external validation of their positions. 

Assess the external circumstances

There’s a court date looming?
 
The inheritance is being litigated away?

Bankruptcy is around the corner? 

Good. Usually…  A little external motivation to negotiate and think creatively to avoid the worst case scenario is usually a good thing. It focuses the mind and can provide an incentive to move from positions to interests, as long as the pressure is not so great as to compromise self-determination and allow parties to decide on their future freely. Which brings us to…

It takes two (or more) 

The suitability of a matter for mediation also depends on the dynamic between the parties. One side has unlimited funds to litigate but the other is on their last pound or euro? That would lead to some concerns about equal ability to participate and decide freely. The tricky thing is that these dynamics are not always immediately visible, and definitely not from the legal or position papers sent by legal representatives. Private, individual intake calls with all parties are a must, even in commercial matters. Use the information, and that gained from assessing external circumstances, to map the dynamics of the conflict.

When in doubt, use a checklist

If you’re ever in doubt about whether a case is suitable for mediation, don’t rely on instinct alone. Sometimes, the simplest tool like a structured checklist can bring the clarity you need.

Ask yourself:

• Do the parties have a history of cooperation?
• Is hostility low to moderate?
• Is there a genuine desire to settle?
• Are there external pressures (cost, time, uncertainty) pushing toward resolution?
• Is there an ongoing relationship to preserve?

Even a handful of positive indicators can suggest mediation is worth pursuing. But as with any complex process, suitability is rarely black and white - it’s about balancing instinct with structure, ethics with practicality.

That’s why assessing suitability is one of the core skills we teach on our Accredited Mediation Summer School this July. 

You’ll leave with the tools to make confident decisions, the insight to navigate tricky dynamics, and the credibility that comes from world-class training.

Only two places remain, secure yours here: Register for Mediation Summer School.

LEAP launches LEAP Leads to help law firms win new clients

Designed to help small to mid-sized law firms grow their client base, LEAP Leads connects firms using LEAP with prospective clients. These leads are automatically delivered within the LEAP system, enabling firms to access potential clients and respond faster and more efficiently than ever before.

Shane Branagan, CEO of LEAP Ireland, comments:

The benefits of LEAP Leads

Marketing and generating new leads can be expensive for law firms. Many firms invest heavily in advertising, content creation, and search engine optimisation to capture potential clients’ attention. LEAP Leads removes this burden by delivering high-quality leads through the consolidated marketing efforts and integration with LawConnect.com — reducing a law firm’s marketing costs and efforts significantly.

Firms automatically have access to LEAP Leads from within their LEAP system and begin receiving enquiries tailored to their specific practice areas and location.
 
LEAP Leads provides firms with:

• Immediate access to genuine legal enquiries across multiple areas of law.
• Seamless integration with existing LEAP software, requiring no additional setup.
• The ability to track, respond to, and manage leads in one central location.
• Prospective clients who have proactively sought out legal information and requested to be connected to a lawyer.

How it works

LEAP Leads is powered by AI and tightly integrated with LawConnect, a public-facing platform where individuals can ask legal questions and receive AI-generated answers.

When a legal query is submitted through LawConnect, the AI begins a conversation to gather relevant details and generates a summary report for the consumer. The prospective client can then choose to connect with a lawyer and request a quote.

Using LEAP law firms can access and manage the incoming qualified leads via a simple to use dashboard. Through a secure messaging system, firms can engage with potential clients, discuss options, and seamlessly onboard new business — converting leads into matters with just one click.

LEAP Leads is part of LEAP’s ongoing effort to support law firms with smart tools that simplify client intake, enhance efficiency, and drive business growth.

To learn more about LEAP Leads, click here.

And finally… up to fluff

Canadian couple Donna and Thomas Dobko launched civil proceedings against Muse & Merchant after being disappointed with the floppiness of their furniture.

The couple purchased the sofa set with two ottomans for over $5,600 CAD (around €3,500 or £3,000) in November 2023, having told salespeople they wanted to buy a firm sofa.

They found that “after sitting on the sofa for an hour or two, the cushions would deflate and angle toward the floor” and raised this with the store in July 2024.

A salesperson informed them that the sofa was not defective but, as it was filled with feathers, it would require maintenance in the form of regular fluffing.

The couple said they would not have bought the sofa if they knew it was filled with feathers and ultimately launched civil proceedings against the store.

A judge in the Provincial Court of British Columbia found that the store had misrepresented the sofa as one which would “hold its shape and form”, which was not the case.

He said: “The evidence is clear that when the Dobkos use the sofa, they must go through the inconvenience of maintaining it. The peace of mind of not having to maintain the sofa was not provided.”

As the sofa was neither defective nor had lost its value, the judge fixed the damages at $500 (around €310 or £270) and also ordered the store to pay $75 in legal costs.

Unique Product Identifiers – ANNA DSB & the UPI

The UPI is comprised of specific values on reference data components which sit in the UPI Reference Data Library on ANNA-DSB. The use of UPIs is the same for EMIR, ASIC, MAS and CFTC – read more here in the context of their application under UK EMIR.

The UPIs from the UPI Reference Data Library are managed and shared by ANNA DSB in a similar manner to ISINs. (See more from ANNA DSB). Having one centralised place for UPIs aims to reduce inconsistency and will hopefully reduce the volume of reportable fields in the future, as many separate data elements can be obtained from the UPI.

TRAction’s UPI Service

At TRAction, we provide a service for our clients to retrieve or generate UPIs. This is a key part of transaction reporting for firms which have not already obtained the UPI from their counterparty or the UPIs do not exist because TRAction’s client is the product manufacturer.

When performing a UPI search on behalf of our clients, we are able to extract and receive most of the data directly from the database table we store about our client’s derivative instruments, based on product attributes.

Do you need an account with ANNA DSB?

TRAction clients aren’t required to have an account with ANNA DSB in order to conduct their transaction reporting.

Non-TRAction clients can create a profile with ANNA-DSB to search and create UPIs. There are several user types available for access to the UPI Reference Data Library which can be found on the ANNA DSB website along with the relevant fees. DSB requires users to provide an active LEI to enable the DSB to verify the identity of the user on GLEIF

How do you obtain a registered UPI?

TRAction clients will benefit from our UPI retrieval and creation which is included in most pricing plans.

For non-TRAction clients, there are a few methods of obtaining information from ANNA DSB other than through a search, such as:

• Graphical User Interface (GUI) (manual)
• Programmatic Interface (FIX API, ReST API)
• File Download (periodic publication of UPI records

TRAction explores how new UPIs are submitted and how current UPIs are extracted from the Derivatives Service Bureau (ANNA DSB), the only service provider for UPI – please see our article here.

Technical information and documents can be found on ANNA DSB’s website.

Read more on the TRAction website

The six most common EMIR reporting errors

We’ve identified the most common errors (for both EU and UK EMIR) in the data we receive from our clients:

1. Original Not Found
2. Invalid Lifecycle Transition
3. ‘Valuation timestamp’
4. ‘Country of the counterparty 2’ field populated with invalid country code
5. UTI reused for a new trade
6. Invalid LEI used

Read more on the TRAction website