There are many important issues which are never discussed on doorsteps with political candidates at election time, but ought to be.
This may be true, but those documents must be relatively very few. In addition, if the “advice” is in fact correspondence between conspirators, the fact that one of the conspirators is a lawyer is not a bar to the introduction of the document in evidence against all the conspirators, including and particularly, the lawyer.
In Ireland, it is the person making the request who must justify it. In principle, that would be fine, if the process was not emptied of intellectual content by requiring that person to justify the request, not by relevance (that, bizarrely, is assumed) but by necessity.
Matters were in each case made more difficult by the decision of the court of appeal in concluding that, while the judgments were deficient, it was possible to discover what the reasons for the judgment were in each case. Consequently, the appellants although aggrieved at the absence of reasons in the original judgments did not win on appeal and lost more money on legal costs.
This state of affairs is favourable to wrongdoers, especially corporate wrongdoers. To permit class actions is to admit that, often, individuals can have a reasonable prospect of justice against a modern corporation, or the state, only through the action of a collective.
It is a principle of Irish (and UK) law that the purpose of the award of compensation by the courts is to, insofar as money can, place the injured party in the same position as if he/she had not been injured.
hat some members of the Irish High Court currently make orders for the provision of, effectively, “general discovery�? is superior anecdotal evidence to the reflections flowing from Brooks Thomas Ltd. V Impac Ltd.  1 I.L.R.M. They prefer to do justice than to respect a dubious proposition simply because it is in a statutory instrument.