High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. In this action the Plaintiffs’ claim is not based upon a series of separate and unconnected acts on the part of each of the Defendants which individually caused damage to the Plaintiffs. The basis of the claim is an alleged agreement or series of agreements between the Defendants to cause damage to the Plaintiffs by preventing them from entering, or by forcing them out of the market for readymixed cement, concrete blocks and mortar in Galway City and a surrounding area and in the South West area of Dublin and the proximate areas of bordering counties and the acts done in order to carry this into effect.

2. This is litigation between a number of commercial entities. So far as breaches of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Competition Act, 1991, are alleged, this is an action for breach of Statutory Duty to which Section 6 of that Act applies. The Plaintiffs also plead the Tort of Conspiracy. Because exemplary damages are claimed the motives and intention of the parties alleged to be in default are relevant, [ Donovan and Others v. ESB and Another [1997] 3 IR 573 at 583, per Barrington J].

3. The Amended Statement of Claim and the Particulars furnished by Order of this Court instance the occasions upon which the acts by which the alleged wrongful or conspiratorial agreements were carried into effect. Issue is joined between the parties as to these. So far as the Plaintiffs’ case is based upon the Tort of Conspiracy, proof of the alleged combination or combinations is essential, [ Lonrho Plc v. Fayed and Others (1991) 3 W.L.R. 188, (H. of L.)]. The same is true with regard to the alleged agreements, co-ordinated decisions and concerted practices and the alleged abuse of collective dominance by a combination of the Defendants or some of them. Issue is also joined between the parties on the pleadings as regards the existence of any such agreements, decisions or practices.

4. The Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 as amended and extended including Order 31 Rule 12 as substituted by Statutory Instrument 233 of 1999, relating to discovery of documents, must in my judgment apply to the conduct of proceedings under Section 6 of the Competition Act, 1991 as they do in the case of any other tort or civil wrong.

5. In my judgment, discovery of documents if it is to be granted in this case must be confined to matters strictly relevant to these pleaded acts and occasions, the circumstances in which they came about and the involvement, (if any), of the Defendants or any of them with them or with each other concerning them. To permit a more general discovery would amount to permitting the Plaintiffs to search about for a case and would be oppressive of the Defendants. [i.e. British Leyland Motor Corporation & Others v. Wyatt Interpart Co. Ltd. (1979) F.S.R. 39 Chancery Division per Whitford J.]

6. Amantiss Enterprises Limited (in voluntary liquidation) commenced trading in June 1986 and ceased trading in March 1991. Its sole business was the importation into this State of cement powder. Its sole customer was Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) because it is alleged the other cement powder users in the State decided en block not to purchase from it. This pleading in my Judgment is of such a general nature and so devoid of any specific allegations of conspiracy or of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the Defendants or of any of them that to grant any form of discovery on foot of it would be wholly vexatious and oppressive and permit the Plaintiffs to fish for a case.

7. Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) traded from March 1988 to November 1990 in Galway City and a surrounding area and from November 1990 to March 1991 in the South Western area of Dublin City and the proximate areas of adjoining Counties. Its business was the production and sale of readymixed cement and mortar and the manufacturer and sale of concrete blocks. It is pleaded that in breach of Article 81 (1) of the E.C. Treaty and Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991, as a consequence of “predatory pricing” in respect of these goods and “sweetheart deals” and “economic duress” with regard to the supply of these and other goods and products such as speciality concrete products, aggregates and bitumen by Roadstone Provinces Limited in combination with some or all of the other Defendants and a company known as Lackagh Rock Limited, a non-party to these proceedings, Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) was driven out of the market in Galway City and a surrounding area.

8. Customers or potential customers of Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) to whom these alleged predatory prices and inducements were offered are stated to have been McNamara and Company Limited in 1990 with regard to the supply of cement blocks and mortar for the building of student residences at University College Galway and James Stewart Limited in 1990 in respect of the supply of readymixed cement, concrete blocks and mortar for a development at Galway Racecourse. Threats of economic discrimination are pleaded as having being made to the following customers or potential customers of Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) in Galway City and a surrounding area, namely Gerry McGarry, Vincent Finn and Kenny Developments Limited, by sales representatives and employees of Roadstone Provinces Limited. It is pleaded that officers and additionally or alternatively agents of the Defendants met on a monthly basis to co-ordinate these activities and that Senior Executives of the Cement Roadstone Group of Companies and in particular a Mr. Art Shirrin were particularly active in this regard.

9. From November 1990 until March 1991 Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) carried on the same business that it had in Galway in the South Western area of Dublin City and the proximate areas of adjoining counties. When Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) ceased to trade in March 1991 Framus Limited carried on a similar business in the same area until it too ceased trading on the 28th February 1994. It is pleaded that the Defendants acting in combination in a cartel or conspiracy prevented Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and Framus Limited from entering this market or forced them out of this market for readymixed cement mortar and concrete blocks despite temporary losses sustained by the Defendants themselves or some of them. It is alleged that this purpose was achieved by collusive tendering, predatory price cutting and price manipulation through offers of rebates and discounts on future and other products such as speciality cement products, aggregates and “bitumen”, (the so called “sweetheart deals” ), or a combination of some or all of these.

10. The occasions when it is pleaded that one or more of these alleged wrongful practices was or were utilised against Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and Framus Limited are instanced as follows:-

11. December 1990 - Tallaght Regional Technical College Contract - predatory price cutting.

12. January - February 1991 - Intel Corporation Contract - collusive tendering and predatory pricing.

13. Easter 1991 Furlong Carpets Contract - price manipulation through rebates and discounts.

14. August 1991 Manor Kilbride Bridge Contract - collusive tendering predatory price cutting and price manipulation through rebates and discounts.

15. October 1991 - Guinness Brewery Contract - predatory price cutting.

16. April - June 1992 - Ballyboggan Road Housing Project Contract - price manipulation through rebates and discounts.

17. August - September 1992 Michael McNamara & Company Contract - predatory price cutting.

18. October 1992 - Dublin Airport Car Park Contract - price manipulation through rebates and discounts.

19. October - November 1992 City West Motorway Bridge Contract - price manipulation through rebates and discounts.

20. March 1993 Dublin Civic Offices Woodquay Phase 2 Contract - predatory price cutting.

21. July 1993 - Croke Park Contract - collusive tendering and predatory price cutting.

22. In my judgment the business practices of the Defendants generally are not relevant to the issues which the Court is called upon to determine in these proceedings. Even if a system of market control by the Defendants could be established by evidence it would amount in essence to a detriment to the purchasers of their products specifically and to the public generally and only incidentally, if at all, to potential competitors and then only to the extent to which the specific activities were particularly directed against them.

23. Evidence of similar conduct might be relevant in some cases, - for example to prove a system of fraud where a single act might otherwise appear innocuous , or to establish a failure to maintain equipment in a claim for damages for personal injuries based upon negligence or breach of statutory duty. But before any such evidence may be considered this sort of case must be specifically pleaded and a good ground for believing that such evidence exists must be made out on Affidavit. Discovery in such a case will be strictly limited in time and as to area and to very specific matters. Anything more general would savor of allowing the Plaintiff to fish for a case and would be unacceptably oppressive on Defendants in terms of inconvenience, time expended, cost incurred, confidential business affairs invaded and trade secrets or manufacturing processes and the like endangered.

24. In the present case I do not see the necessity for the widespread discovery sought by the Plaintiffs as a means of saving costs at the hearing of the action. Evidence of general non-competitive dealings by the Defendants or the manner in which business was conducted by them with a wide selection of major companies in the building industry in this State would not in my judgment afford any pertinent or sufficient proof of combinations or agreements directed at the Plaintiffs or of overt acts committed pursuant to such alleged combinations or agreements resulting in damage to the Plaintiffs. In my judgment non-competitive business practices on the part of the Defendants, except where they can be alleged to have an identified and specific impact on the Plaintiffs, are a matter for the Competition Authority or the European Commission and are not matters with which this Court can be concerned in litigation inter partes.

25. It further appears to me that for the Court to direct discovery of communications between the Defendants and Lackagh Rock Limited, which is not a Defendant in these proceedings, nor a customer or potential customer of the Plaintiffs whose business was lost as a result of the anti competitive practices and additionally or alternatively tortious conspiracy of the Defendants or some of them, would be to give Third Party Discovery against this body, directly as regards documents emanating from it and indirectly as regards documents emanating from the Defendants citing or in response to documents emanating from it, without having given that body an opportunity of being heard and where its trade secrets or confidential business affairs might be involved. An alleged general agreement or conspiracy amongst the Defendants to maintain prices at a particular level or to limit access to the market by potential competitors while ultimately to the disadvantage of the general public and the distortion of trade is no basis for such a radical departure from the usual procedures at least in private litigation.

26. For the reasons I have already expressed I do not accept that the sort of widespread discovery sought by the Plaintiffs in this application is necessary for disposing fairly of the issues in the case or for saving costs at the hearing of the action.

27. In so far as it is pleaded that anti competitive representations and threats were made by sales representatives and employees of Roadstone Provinces Limited to customers of Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) identified as Gerry McGarry, Vincent Finn and Kenny Developments Limited, these are not stated to have been made in writing. The Plaintiffs’ one must infer, were aware in advance of this pleading of the date, form and parties to these alleged representations. These are matters to be established by oral evidence or perhaps by interrogatories and are not matters appropriate for discovery of documents. In my judgment, as regards the allegations of conspiracy and anti competitive practices pertaining to Galway City and the surrounding area the Plaintiffs are entitled to the following discovery only:-

28. Against Roadstone Provinces Limited -

29. Against each of the first four named Defendants:

30. All documents and records containing or relating to any communication from or with any other of the first four named Defendants or more of them or any officer agent or employee of them or of any of them concerning the matters set out in the proceeding paragraphs and numbered 1 to 4 inclusive or any such matters in the period 1st October 1989 to 31st March 1991 inclusive, including but not limited to, intercompany memoranda, board minutes, internal reports, policy directives, external advices and opinions, and the appointments books, diaries and travel records within the State of the senior executives of each of the first five named Defendants.

31. Some of these matters could be proved at the trial of this action by calling oral evidence. However there could be significant difficulties for the Plaintiffs in the context of business relations generally and in particular in the light of the allegations pleaded, in persuading persons in the construction and building services industry in the State to give evidence. Also the time and cost involved would as a matter of probability be disproportionately large. In my judgment the Affidavit grounding this application for discovery sufficiently demonstrates and verifies that discovery to this extent is necessary if the issues raised in the pleadings are to be fairly litigated and determined and in order to save unnecessary cost and delay at the hearing itself. Subject to these restrictions introduced by Order 31 Rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 as amended and substituted by Statutory Instrument 233 of 1999 having regard to the principles relating to the right of the Plaintiffs to discovery of documents stated in the case of Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 by Brett, L. J., at page 63, approved by the Supreme Court in Brooks Thomas Limited v. Impac Limited [1999] 1 ILRM 171, in my judgment the Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of documents within the limits I have stated.

32. Some of these documents may contain what the Defendants regard as confidential trade information but this in itself is not a reason for refusing discovery. Whether privilege or confidentiality is claimed in respect of them documents otherwise relevant must be disclosed in the Affidavit of Discovery. Issues of privilege including privilege against self-incrimination for breaches of Article 86 (1) of the E.C. Treaty, [ Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1978) 1 A.E.R. 434] or loss of confidentiality and how the later might be preserved or its loss mitigated falls to be addressed on an application for inspection of documents under Order 31 Rule 18 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 [ Sterling Winthrop Group Limited v. Farbenfabrinken Bayer A.G. , [1967] IR 97 at 99 per Kenny J., and Cooper Flynn v. Radio Telefis Eireann and Others [2001] 1 ILRM 208 at 219 approving the decision in Wallace Smith Trust Company Limited v. Deloitt Haskins and Sells (a firm), (1996) 4 A.E.R. 403 per Simon Brown L.J., at 417).

33. It is pleaded in the defence of the first five Defendants delivered on the 20th June 2000 that all claims on foot of any cause of action which accrued prior to the 4th December 1990 were statute barred at the date of issue of the plenary summons on the 4th December 1996. The Defence of the sixth named Defendant delivered on the 20th November 1998 contains a similar plea. It is admitted that Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) ceased to trade in the Galway City and adjoining area in November 1990. In my judgment the Court does not have power to determine this issue on the hearing of this motion for discovery or to make any assumptions as to whether or not this plea will be successful. It does not appear to me that the discovery sought is necessary for the determination of this issue. Neither am I satisfied that the alleged conspiracy and additionally or alternatively the alleged anti competitive activities of the Defendants or any of them in Galway City and the surrounding area in the period March 1988 to November 1990 are shown, even on a prima facie basis to be inextricably bound up with their alleged similar torts and anti competitive activities in the south west area of Dublin City and adjoining areas and the proximate counties in the period December 1990 to 24th February 1994 so that the proof of one is essential to or even significantly material to the proof of the other. In these circumstances, having delineated the extent of the appropriate discovery should it become necessary, I believe that it would be oppressive on the Defendants to require them to furnish this discovery without first affording them an opportunity of having this plea on the statute of limitations determined by way of a trial of a point of law under the provisions of Order 25 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Accordingly the Court will exercise its power under Order 31 Rule 12 (2) of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 as substituted by Statutory Instrument 233 of 1999 to adjourn the making of an order on this part of the motion with liberty to every party to Re-Enter the same.

34. The Plaintiffs’ contend in their amended statement of claim that after Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation), entered the market in the south west area of Dublin City and the proximate areas of adjoining counties in November or December 1990 succeeded by Framus Limited in March 1991, the Defendants consistently reduced the price of 35 newtons concrete from £56.00 per cubic metre to £37.00 per cubic metre, a level only they could sustain having regard to their dominant position in the market and which forced the first and third named Plaintiffs to sell below cost. Specific instances of this alleged anti competitive activity are pleaded as having occurred in December 1990, January or February 1991, August 1991, August or September 1992, March 1993 and July 1993. The Plaintiffs further contend that these reductions in price were temporary only and that after the first named Defendant left the market on the 28th February 1994 prices were restored to £50.00 per cubic metre for 35 newtons concrete in this area.

35. In my judgment the Court is obliged to balance the requirement of affording the Plaintiffs a sufficiently comprehensive discovery relevant to this issue with avoiding an unduly wide discovery which would be oppressive to the Defendants. Despite the plea of the statute of limitations in respect of remedies prior to the 4th December 1990, I consider that evidence of prices prior to that date, which is just at the time the third named Plaintiff entered the market in this area is relevant to the issues of price movements in the period immediately after that date. However, in my view to allow discovery in respect of the years 1990 to 1994 inclusive, even if limited to documents relating to prices and terms and conditions of sale would be altogether too wide and oppressive to the Defendants. In my judgment discovery should be made as follows:-

36. Furlong Carpets Limited contract - Ballymount Road - High Degree Construction Limited, Builder, - start March or April 1991 approximately.

37. Manor Kilbride Bridge Construction contract for Wicklow County Council, - John Craddock Limited, Builder, - start August 1992 approximately.

38. Dublin - Naas Motorway, Flyover Bridge at Citywest or Brown’s Barn - Coffey Construction Limited, Builder, - start October or November 1992 approximately.

39. Dublin Airport - Multi-Storey Car Park contract, - P.J.W. Walls Limited, Builder, - start 29th October 1992 approximately.

40. Intel Corporation contract, - Ascon - Rohcon Limited, Builder, - start January or February 1991 approximately.

41. Ballyboggan Road Housing Project contract, - Jackie Greene Construction Limited, Builder, - start June 1992 approximately.

42. Dublin Civic Offices Woodquay Phase 2 Construction contract, - Pierse Contracting Limited, Builder, - start March 1993 approximately.

43. Guinness Brewery Construction contract, - Walsh Maguire and O’Shea Limited, Builders, - start October 1991 approximately.

44. Croke Park Construction contract, - Swift Structures Limited, Builders, - start July 1993 approximately.

45. Each of the eight Defendants to make discovery of all documents and records in its possession, custody or power or in the possession, custody or power of its solicitors or agents containing or relating to any communication from or with the other Defendants or any of them or any officer agent or employee of them or any of them or with any other person or persons whatsoever legal or actual concerning the matters set out in the immediately preceding paragraphs and numbered 2 - 5 inclusive or any of them.

46. It is pleaded that officers, agents or employees of C.R.H., Plc, Irish Cement Limited and Roadstone Dublin Limited, all part of the Cement - Roadstone Group of companies, in breach of Section 5 of the Competition Act, 1991 and Article 82 of the E.C. Treaty made oral threats to officers and then employees of the third named Plaintiff in particular Mr. Seamus Maye that unless the third named Plaintiff:-

47. C.R.H., Plc would use any means at any cost to eliminate Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and Framus Limited (then Dublin Concrete Products Limited, trading as National Concrete) from the Dublin Market, principally by ensuring that prices of concrete products in this market were reduced and held below a level at which they could not survive.

48. These meetings are alleged to have taken place on the 5th February 1991, 12th December 1991, 25th May 1992, 22nd June 1992, 9th July 1992, 28th July 1992, 8th December 1992, 5th January 1993, 27th January 1993 and 24th June 1993. The officers, agents or employees of these Defendants alleged to have made these threats are pleaded as being, Mr. Declan Doyle and Mr. Gilmore of C.R.H., Plc, Mr. O’Loghlen of Irish Cement Limited and Mr. Martin MacAodh of Roadstone Dublin Limited.

49. These are matters which will require to be established by oral evidence at the hearing of this action and might also be the subject of interrogatories. However, in my view each of these Defendants, that is C.R.H., Plc, Irish Cement Limited and Roadstone Dublin Limited should make discovery of all documents and records in their possession, custody or power or in the possession, custody or power of each of their solicitors and agents relating to these alleged meetings or any of them including briefing notes, appointments books, diaries, memoranda and reports.

50. In my judgment the alleged statements pleaded as made by Mr. Dermot McKeown and by his now deceased brother Mr. Kevin McKeown, in August 1992 and by Mr. John McNearney on the 6th September 1993 are altogether too vague and undirected to merit any consideration on this application for discovery of documents.

51. The Plaintiffs further plead that in September and additionally or alternatively in October 1993, C.R.H., Plc endeavoured to induce Lagan Cement [sic] to desist from supplying cement to the first named Plaintiff or to withhold the credit line allowed by it to the first named Plaintiff. In my judgment C.R.H., Plc should make discovery of all documents and records in its possession, custody or power or in the possession, custody or power of its solicitors or agents relating to any communication with Lagan Cement or any officer, agent or employee of Lagan Cement in the months of September and October 1993.

52. Each of the eight Defendants should make discovery of all documents and records in its possession, custody or power or in the possession, custody or power of its solicitors and agents containing or relating to any communication from or with the other Defendants or any of them or any officer, agent or employee of them or any of them concerning these alleged treats by or on behalf of C.R.H., Plc, Irish Cement Limited and Roadstone Dublin Limited and concerning this alleged approach by or on behalf of C.R.H., Plc to Lagan Cement.

53. The Plaintiffs claim discovery of documents internal to each of the first five named Defendants and extending to communications between them and with the other named Defendants and with Lackagh Rock Limited in relation to the purchase, sale and pricing of aggregates and with 23 named alleged customers of the Plaintiffs in relation to the purchase, sale and pricing of speciality concrete products, in the period February 1987 to February 1995. The reasons stated for seeking discovery of these documents is that the Defendants had abused their collective dominant position in these markets to the commercial detriment of the Plaintiffs and had unlawfully conspired with each other by overt acts identified in the amended Statement of Claim, to injure the Plaintiffs. The alleged abuse of dominant position is pleaded at paragraph 20 of the amended statement of claim to consist of :-

54. The Plaintiffs plead that the best particulars which they can give until after discovery and additionally or alternatively interrogatories are those set out in Part B of the schedule to the amended statement of claim.

55. In my judgement Part B of the schedule of the amended statement of claim contains no particulars of unfair purchase or selling prices or unfair or dissimilar trading conditions imposed on the Plaintiffs with respect to aggregates or speciality concrete products. It is not pleaded that the Plaintiffs were unable to obtain aggregates or speciality concrete products or to obtain them only on unfair or dissimilar terms. It is not pleaded that the Plaintiffs sold aggregates or speciality concrete products. It is expressly pleaded that C.R.H., Plc endeavoured to persuade the first named Plaintiff to renegotiate some of the terms of its contract with Hudson Brothers [sic], its supplier of aggregates. The Court has already addressed the pleading that the Defendants or some of them used multi product purchase agreements or arrangements, which included the supply of aggregates and specialist concrete products as a means of excluding the third named Plaintiff from the Galway market and the first and third named Plaintiffs from the Dublin markets. I am therefore not convinced that discovery of these documents relates to any of the issues inter partes. In addition discovery so wide both in time and content would in my judgment be wholly oppressive of the Defendants.

56. The Plaintiffs seek discovery of an enormous range of documents and records extending over a period of 8 years which it is claimed may establish a direct or indirect ownership or control by the Defendants and in particular the Cement Roadstone Group of Defendants, of companies or unincorporated businesses involved in the supply of concrete products, aggregates or speciality concrete products, or who own or control sources of aggregates, and so demonstrate the extent of the Defendants dominance in the market for aggregates, concrete products, tarmac and speciality concrete products such goods being effectively homologous.

57. The documents sought are:-

58. It is pleaded in the amended statement of claim that the Defendants together hold a collective dominance in the State or substantial parts or part of the State, (being in each case a substantial part of the European Union), in the market for the manufacture and supply of concrete products and speciality concrete products. It is further pleaded that the first five named Defendants hold a dominant position in the cement powder and aggregates market in the State and a substantial market share in the concrete products and speciality concrete products market in the State. However, in my judgement the sole basis for the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants in this action is that the Defendants or some or one of them excluded the Plaintiffs from the Galway and Dublin markets for three varieties of concrete product only, namely, readymixed cement, mortar and concrete blocks, and effected this purpose by anti competitive practices and by the abuse of their alleged dominant position in the market in these products. Particulars of these alleged practices and of the alleged abuse of the alleged dominant position where ordered by this Court to be given and in summary where identified as the use of predatory price cutting, special terms and conditions of sale including multi product purchase agreements and arrangements and collusive tendering.

59. I am not convinced that these documents could relate to any matter really in question in this action in particular to the issue of whether customers or potential customers of the Plaintiffs were offered multi product purchase arrangements involving aggregates or speciality concrete products or were threatened with unfair discrimination in the supply of these products for the purpose of attracting or forcing them away from the Plaintiffs. If such offers or threats were made there appears to me to be little relevance in establishing whether or not the Defendants or one or more of them through their direct or in indirect ownership or control of companies or unincorporated businesses involved in the ownership or supply of aggregates or in the supply of concrete products or speciality concrete products could have carried into effect these inducements or threats if in fact the customers or potential customers of the Plaintiffs acted on them to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. I am further satisfied that to make an order in these terms would be oppressive of the Defendants without any probable advantage to the Plaintiffs and would not in any manner be conducive to preventing surprise or saving either costs or time at the hearing of the case.

60. The Plaintiffs seek discovery of any request made by the first to the seventh named Defendant inclusive for advice or assistance and any reports or written advices or assistance given by any person to them in relation to what Counsel described as their obligations under Article 81 (1) and Article 82 of the E.C., Treaty and Section 4 and Section 5 of the Competition Act, 1991, and the observance and performance of these obligations as regards any of their actions in respect of which complaint is made in the amended statement of claim and replies to notices for particulars. This discovery is claimed to be pertinent because the Plaintiffs have claimed exemplary damages under Section 6 (3) (B) of the Competition Act, 1991, and believe that the Defendants as a matter of probability sought expert advice, including legal and accountancy advice in respect of some or all of these matters and acted in the positive knowledge that what they were doing was unlawful and in breach of the above mentioned Articles and sections the Act.

61. The Court has already indicated that discovery should be made of all documents and records in the possession, custody or power of the Defendants, their solicitors or agents, relating to specific alleged overt acts of the Defendants. Documents offering or containing professional advice or assistance relative to these matters would come within an Order of the Court made in these terms. In my judgment to go further and to allow discovery based upon a mere general supposition would be to enable a Plaintiff to cast about for a cause of action and as such be contrary to the principles upon which discovery of documents is granted by the Courts.