Here in Ireland, if there were to be a reprise of that struggle we can not be sure that the courts’ response might not be equally inadequate.
Apropos Daniels, again
This blog is settled in the view that the current fashion of requiring minimal discovery of records/documentation in the course of litigation is mistaken.
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.
Unfortunately, in Ireland, one, at least, of the Rules of the Superior Courts hinders the doing of justice. That rule currently governs the making of “discovery” in proceedings.
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.
An Unpleasant Discovery
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.