A man who claims he was a partner in the public relations firm Murray Consultants is claiming legal privilege over documents which relate to negotiations for the buyout of his shares in the company, it was alleged in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Bryan Murray, for Mr Patrick Joseph Murray and Mr Jim Milton, of Murray Consultants, said Mr Terence P. Horgan should not be entitled to privilege of such documents but should have to discover them for legal proceedings involving his clients and Mr Horgan.
He made the submission at the resumption of the hearing of a dispute over an alleged failure to discover documents.
The hearing opened at the High Court last month but was adjourned. It resumed before Mr Justice O'Sullivan yesterday and continues this morning.
Mr Horgan says Murray Consultants was founded in 1974 and claims he was an equal partner up to 1995 with Mr Murray and Mr Milton, when he claims the relationship broke down. He claims he was effectively excluded from the business of the company since late 1996.
He has initiated proceedings against his former colleagues and, in the present hearing, is claiming Mr Murray and Mr Milton have failed to discover all the documents which he requires.
In the discovery proceedings, he is seeking an order striking out the points of defence submitted by Mr Murray and Mr Milton because of their alleged failure to comply with court orders for discovery of documents. Alternatively, he wants the court to compel both men to comply with the discovery request.
Mr Murray and Mr Milton have also applied for an order against Mr Horgan to produce documents.
Moving that motion yesterday, Mr Bryan Murray said he was challenging Mr Horgan's claim of privilege for three categories of documents. These were: (1) communications between Mr Horgan and persons described as "experts" up to April 1996; (2) a handwritten memo which Mr Horgan had said he would give to Mr Murray and Mr Milton but had failed to do so; and (3) handwritten notes of Mr Horgan's, both dated and undated.
He said Mr Horgan was in negotiation with Mr Murray and Mr Milton for the purchase of his shares in Murray Consultants during the middle and end of 1995 and in the first quarter of 1996. Many of the communications between Mr Horgan and the "experts" were not related to litigation and, consequently, were not privileged documents. The main purpose for those documents was not the furtherance of litigation but negotiations for the shares buyout.
He said the documents were critical to the valuation of the shares and this was a central part of the proceedings taken by Mr Horgan against his clients.
Mr Paul Gardiner, for Mr Horgan, said all the documents referred to were privileged and were related to furtherance of litigation. Mr Horgan had been placed in a situation, at the time the documents in question came into being, where his only option was to sell his shares.
His client was claiming privilege over the communications with experts, the memo referred to and the handwritten notes on the basis that the dominant purpose of those documents was litigation.
He said this was a time after incidents of abandonment of trust by Mr Murray and Mr Milton. It was after they had met together for the first time while excluding Mr Horgan.
Mr Gardiner said his client was seeking to agree a price for his shares to avoid the litigation which is now under way. He was put in a position where he had to sell his shares.