The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order requiring them to produce summaries of facts, observations, and conclusions contained in investigation reports listed in Schedule B of their affidavit of documents, along with will‑say statements of intended witnesses.
The moving parties argued the order improperly expanded documentary discovery by compelling disclosure of information contained in litigation‑privileged materials and effectively permitted indirect discovery outside the oral discovery process.
The court held that the order did not establish a new legal principle but was a fact‑specific procedural response to unusual circumstances, including late disclosure of Schedule B documents long after discoveries had occurred.
The information ordered produced was information that would have been available on examination for discovery under Rule 31.06.
Leave to appeal was therefore not warranted.