Jones v Coolmore Stud

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Costello
• Judgment Date: 14 June 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 329
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 3211 P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 June 2016

BETWEEN

WILLIAM JONES

PLAINTIFF

AND

COOLMORE STUD

DEFENDANT

[2016] IEHC 329

Costello J.

[2016 No. 3211 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Defamation – The Defamation Act 2009 – Practice & Procedures – Threat of proposed legal action – Interlocutory injunction – Adequacy of damages – Balance of convenience

Facts: The plaintiff being the former employee of the defendant sought an interlocutory injunction for restraining the defendant from threatening the bookshops or websites with legal action for defamation in relation to a book written by the plaintiff about the operations and business of the defendant. The plaintiff contended that instead of sending letters to the proposed sellers apprising them of the defamatory contents of the said book, the defendant should commence the appropriate proceedings against the plaintiff.

Ms. Justice Costello refused to grant the desired relief to the plaintiff. The Court, in conformity with Campus Oil v. Minister for Industry (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88, held that before granting a prohibitory interlocutory injunction, the Court must determine whether there was a fair issue to be tried between the parties. The Court held that the plaintiff had no real arguable case as the defendant's desire not to institute defamation proceedings against the plaintiff would not be a valid ground to ask for an injunction. The Court observed that notwithstanding the letters sent by the defendant to the proposed publishers of the said book regarding its defamatory contents, the innocent publication was protected under s. 27 of the Defamation Act 2009. The Court held that since the plaintiff had violated copyright agreements of certain individuals in relation to that book, the balance of convenience would not lean in his favour. The Court found that the loss, if caused to the plaintiff, could be easily quantified and compensated.

Ms. Justice Costello

1 The plaintiff is a former employee of Coolmore Stud, the defendant. The defendant is one of the largest commercial thoroughbred breeding and racing operations in the world and has a wide range of operations in Ireland, the United States and Australia. Its principal place of operations is from a stud farm in Co. Tipperary. Subsequent to the termination of his employment, which I shall explain more fully below, the plaintiff wrote and published a book about the operations and business of the defendant entitled ‘The Black Horse Inside Coolmore’(‘the book’). These proceedings relate to the plaintiff's book.

2 The plaintiff seeks four injunctions against the defendant as follows:-

‘(i) Preventing the defendant and/or its representatives from threatening any bookshops or websites with legal action for defamation relating to the book, “The Black Horse Inside Coolmore”;

(ii) Compelling the defendant and its representatives to immediately withdraw in writing all threats of legal action previously made to bookshops and Amazon in relation to “The Black Horse Inside Coolmore”;

(iii) Declaring that “The Black Horse Inside Coolmore” is not defamatory on the face of it and may be sold in outlets where books are sold; and

(iv) Instructing the defendant to provide the plaintiff in this action all evidence without exception relating to their claim that “The Black Horse Inside Coolmore” is defamatory and if they refuse to do so they will pay the plaintiff's costs unless the court decides the refusal is reasonable’.

3 The plaintiff commenced the proceedings by way of plenary summons issued on 13th April, 2016, and by anex parte motion docket dated 8th April, 2016, he sought reliefs in precisely the same terms as the general indorsement of claim. No interim relief was granted but instead the matter has proceeded before me as an application for interlocutory injunctions as set out above.

4 The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant for nine years. In 2014 he brought a claim arising from his employment before the Labour Relations Commission. The claim was compromised, with the assistance of a Rights Commissioner, and the agreement was reduced to writing on 12th December, 2014. The agreement provides as follows:-

‘1. It is agreed the claimant will retire on Friday 16 January '15 as per his normal retirement date and all staff of the respondent will be informed accordingly.…

3. The claimant accepts he was provided with the opportunity to get professional advice prior to signing this agreement but he declined this offer and that he was happy to sign this as written.

4. The claimant accepts he has no further claim against the respondent under any other relevant employment legislation (including, but not limited to, Unfair Dismissals, Employment Equality and Protected Disclosures Acts), Personal Injuries or common law whatsoever.

5. He withdraws his claim r 147483-ir-14 which is before the Rights Commissioner.…

7. This agreement is strictly private and confidential to the parties involved except where called upon by the statutory bodies or by law. Confidentiality is an essential term of this agreement on both parties.

8. It is a term of this agreement that no records relating to animals or clients will be disclosed by claimant.

9. Both parties agree they will not make any derogatory comments about each other at any time in the future.…

12. The respondent will pay to the claimant the sum of €30,000 (net) as a gesture of appreciation (which shall be inclusive of redundancy) and no further sums are due to the claimant.’

5 The agreement was signed by both the plaintiff and Mr. David Gleeson on behalf of the defendant. The agreement has been performed by both parties: the plaintiff has vacated the property where he resided upon his retirement and has surrendered keys, equipment, and other property to the defendant. The plaintiff has withdrawn his claim before the Rights Commissioner. The defendant has paid the plaintiff €30,000.00.

6 On 23rd November, 2015, the plaintiff published the book. Prior to its publication by letter dated 8th June, 2015, the defendant's solicitors, Arthur Cox, reminded him of his contractual obligations, in particular clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the agreement of 12th December, 2014. The plaintiff replied by e-mail dated 8th June 2015. He stated:-

‘In writing my book I have already received barrister's advice about what I can and can't refer to and I have, accordingly, complied with the terms of the Agreement.’

7 On 29th July, 2015, Arthur Cox wrote asking if he would send them a copy of the manuscript of his book so that their client could satisfy itself that no breach of the agreement would arise by reason of the publication of the book. The plaintiff responded by e-mail dated 30th July, 2015, stating that he was under no obligation to show Arthur Cox a copy of the manuscript before the book went on sale. In reply, by letter dated 13th August, 2015, Arthur Cox stated:-

‘We did not suggest that you were under any obligation to share your manuscript. Our client is however seeking assurance that its contents uphold and abide by the confidentiality agreement signed by both parties, and to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of clients and staff is upheld, and also that it does not contain any defamatory material. …

Please note that our client is committed to and has upheld its responsibilities under the confidentiality agreement.

Furthermore, after the lengthy exchange of correspondence and allegations made by you prior to your retirement, there are reasonable grounds for serious concern that individuals connected to and employees of Coolmore Stud may be defamed by your book.

We would be grateful if you could notify us of the distributors / sales outlets you intend for the publication of your book. We consider that it is reasonable and fair for them to be made aware of their liability in law if any defamatory material is contained in the publication, and it will advise them of same accordingly.’

8 The plaintiff replied by e-mail dated 14th August, 2015, stating:-

‘I refer to your email dated 13 August 2015. I have previously stated my position and I believe your email is an attempt to harass and intimidate me. I have considered your reference to a liability in law for anyone connected with my book and your misplaced belief that you should be able to advise them accordingly. It will not be for you or your clients to decide if I defame anyone either now or in the future and whether connected to Coolmore Stud or a completely separate situation. It would be decided by an Irish court [sic].

I take this opportunity to remind you of point 7 of the agreement between your clients and myself dated 12 December 2014. “This agreement is strictly private and confidential to the parties involved except where called upon by the statutory bodies or by law.” I am not impressed at all by your intimidation tactics. I will be more than happy to argue the toss with you in open court if that is what you want. It would be great publicity for my book. I also point out that I have an investigative journalist with RTE now shadowing my story, so please don't think I am on my own.’

9 Arthur Cox wrote again on 19th August, 2015, reminding the plaintiff that the relevant terms of the agreement were not limited to clause 7 but also they would be relying upon clauses 8 and 9. The plaintiff replied by e-mail of 21st August, 2015, complaining that they were trying to harass and intimidate him and that they had already received his answer.

10 The defendant's solicitors corresponded with Amazon EU Sarl, UK Branch, in advance of the publication of the book. The letter of the 19th August, 2015, was addressed to Amazon UK Services Ltd., Legal Department, and was headed ‘Re: NOTICE OF DEFAMATORY CONTENT“The Black Horse Inside Coolmore” by William Jones’. The letter stated:-

‘Our client is concerned that the Book could contain...