This was an Appeal against a decision by the District Judge to amend the terms of a witness summons issued at the request of the Defendant on Mr Christopher McCausland of McCausland Holdings/Value Cabs. The Judgment raises a number of significant points in terms of obtaining discovery in credit hire cases, particularly those involving a taxi vehicle.
The Plaintiff’s claim arose as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred on 19th October 2008 at the Springfield Road, Belfast. The Plaintiff claimed for £705.00 credit hire charges on foot of an agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Crash Services on the 7th November 2008. Specifically these charges were broken down as follows:-
The Defendant contended that it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff to have hired a vehicle through Crash Services and the rate charged by Crash Services for the hire of this vehicle was exuberant.
It was not disputed that McCauslands had supplied the credit hire taxi vehicle in question to Crash Services. It was not disputed that there was a relevant commercial arrangement between McCauslands and Crash Services. Mr McCausland had, upon receiving the witness summons to attend at a hearing scheduled between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, lodged an application asking for the witness summons to be set aside on a number of grounds including asserted oppression. The specific terms of the witness summons directed to Mr McCausland were:-
“You are hereby summonsed to attend to give evidence in the above action or proceeding and to bring with you and produce to the Court the documents specified hereunder …..
The District Judge ordered the deletion of the second and third categories of documents. Mr McCausland Appealed to the High Court against this Order. The Defendant counter argued that not only should the District Judge’s Order be maintained but it should indeed be extended to include:-
Mr Justice McCloskey dismissed the Appeal by Mr McCausland and indeed allowed a full extension of the original Order as requested above by the Defendant.
Mr Justice McCloskey considered the background of credit hire cases and conducted an examination of the prominent cases of Dimond –v- Levelle (2002), Lagdon –v- O’Connor and indeed the recent Judgements of Mr Justice Stevens in Gilheaney –v- McGovern (2009), Kelly –v- Mackle (2009) and Salt –v- Helley (2009).
He concluded this examination by noting that “the passage quoted from these (3) decisions hopefully demonstrate, that there is ample scope for intense factual sensitivity and variation in the collection of decided cases belonging to this fear”. Mr Justice Stevens is once again highlighting that the recent decisions are very fact specific.
Mr Justice McCloskey then went on to consider the relevant case law regarding the production of discoverable documents. He considered that the over arching test to be applied in the present circumstances is whether they satisfy the fundamental criteria of relevance. In other words would it have a bearing on the Courts resolution of the Plaintiff’s claim for the vehicle credit hire charges and the Defendant’s case that such charges were unreasonable. Taking all matters into consideration including the over riding objective of Order 1 Rule 1A he considered that all of the documents requested on foot of the proposed extend witness summons were relevant to the issues in the case.
Mr Justice McCloskey concluded his Judgement by “strongly urging” a common sense, realistic approach by all concerned. This would involve the non party, Mr McCausland, providing all the documents requested well in advance of the Trial. This may facilitate his not having to attend at the forthcoming hearing.
Comment
This Judgement is certainly helpful from a defence point of view. Mr Justice McCloskey has reached the conclusion that the following information / documentation is relevant in determining whether the rate of hire charged by a credit hire company is reasonable:
We would certainly anticipate that the result of this decision will be that the service providers will be much more willing to provide this information when requested by Defendant representatives. The extension of this must also be that Crash Services should likewise, on an application for discovery by the Defendant’s representatives, supply all of this documentation.
Mr Justice McCloskey concluded this judgment by urging those currently seeking applications for witness summons, discovery of documents and/or interrogatories to take note of the terms of this Judgement and considered whether the documents, replies or witnesses requested assisted in the resolution of the contested issues. These comments certainly have wider implications for disclosure generally between parties, extending beyond credit hire cases.