An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t. [2003] IESC 62; [2003] 4 IR 264 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case that dealt with the law of discovery. In his judgement, Fennelly J. reinforced the test that discovery will only be granted if the court is satisfied that the documents sought are: (i) relevant to the issues in the proceedings; and (ii) that discovery is necessary for fairly disposing of the matter and for saving costs. The court noted that in order for documents to satisfy this test the applicant does not have to prove that they are, "in any sense absolutely necessary". Rather all he has to do is prove that he would suffer a "litigious disadvantage by not seeing them". The burden of proof rests firmly on the party seeking the discovery.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t. [2003] IESC 62; [2003] 4 IR 264 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case that dealt with the law of discovery. In his judgement, Fennelly J. reinforced the test that discovery will only be granted if the court is satisfied that the documents sought are: (i) relevant to the issues in the proceedings; and (ii) that discovery is necessary for fairly disposing of the matter and for saving costs. The court noted that in order for documents to satisfy this test the applicant does not have to prove that they are, "in any sense absolutely necessary". Rather all he has to do is prove that he would suffer a "litigious disadvantage by not seeing them". The burden of proof rests firmly on the party seeking the discovery. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 61959577 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 9144 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1082198865 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:appealedFrom
  • The Irish High Court (en)
dbp:appealedTo
  • The Irish Supreme Court (en)
dbp:caption
dbp:citations
  • [2003] IESC 62, [2003] 4 IR 264, [2004] 1 ILRM 241 (en)
dbp:concurring
  • Denham J. (en)
dbp:court
dbp:dateDecided
  • 2 (xsd:integer)
dbp:decisionBy
  • Fennelly J., and McCracken J. (en)
dbp:fullName
  • Ryanair P.L.C. v Aer Rianta C.P.T. [2003] 4 IR 264 (en)
dbp:italicTitle
  • Ryanair P.L.C. v Aer Rianta C.P.T (en)
dbp:judges
  • Fennelly J., McCracken J., and Denham J. (en)
dbp:keywords
  • Discovery, Necessity, Relevance (en)
dbp:name
  • Ryanair P.L.C. v Aer Rianta C.P.T. (en)
dbp:numberOfJudges
  • 3 (xsd:integer)
dbp:opinions
  • The applicant does not have to prove that the documents sought to be discovered are in any sense absolutely necessary but rather that he would suffer a litigious disadvantage by not seeing them. (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t. [2003] IESC 62; [2003] 4 IR 264 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case that dealt with the law of discovery. In his judgement, Fennelly J. reinforced the test that discovery will only be granted if the court is satisfied that the documents sought are: (i) relevant to the issues in the proceedings; and (ii) that discovery is necessary for fairly disposing of the matter and for saving costs. The court noted that in order for documents to satisfy this test the applicant does not have to prove that they are, "in any sense absolutely necessary". Rather all he has to do is prove that he would suffer a "litigious disadvantage by not seeing them". The burden of proof rests firmly on the party seeking the discovery. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t. (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License