Discovery not necessary or relevant in unjust enrichment claim

Evan Kearney BL, 19 March 2020 (© Decisis)

March 26, 2020

Wheelock v Promontoria (Arrow) Ltd [2020] IEHC 114


Judgment of Twomey J, delivered 28 February 2020:

High Court refuses an application for discovery in proceedings concerning a claim for unjust enrichment, on the grounds that the documents sought to be discovered were neither necessary nor relevant given the nature of the claim.

Unjust enrichment claim against Plaintiff by First Named Defendant arising from allegedly forged mortgage – discovery motion - Plaintiff seeks discovery of price paid for his loan by First Named Defendant – not relevant or necessary considering nature of unjust enrichment – the inequity arises because it would be unjust for the Plaintiff to walk away with the lands freely regardless of how much the First Named Defendant paid for his loan from Anglo Irish Bank – discovery refused and no prejudice arises to Plaintiff as trial judge could order it if he deemed it necessary.


Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.


Key Cases Cited:

Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou [2016] 2 All ER 913

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Murray [2019] IEHC 234

HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LC & Ors v English [2019] IEHC 306

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale [1991] 2 AC 548

Promontoria (Aran) Ltd v Sheehy [2019] IEHC 613

Promontoria (Arrow) Limited v Wheelock & O’Leary [2014/9112 P]