Jones v Coolmore Stud

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Allen
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 652
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 2122 P]
• Date: 01 October 2019

[2019] IEHC 652

THE HIGH COURT

Allen

[2018 No. 2122 P]

BETWEEN

WILLIAM JONES

PLAINTIFF

AND

COOLMORE STUD

DEFENDANT

Defamation – Damages – Injunctions – Defendant seeking an order striking out the plaintiff’s claim – Whether the plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or was frivolous and/or vexatious

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Jones, claimed damages for defamation and a variety of injunctions arising from the publication by the solicitors of the defendant, Coolmore Stud, on the defendant’s behalf, of a letter to a book distributor. The substance of that letter was a complaint that a book written and published by the defendant contained material which was defamatory of the defendant and material the publication of which was a breach of contract, confidentiality and copyright. In previous proceedings between the same parties the High Court and the Court of Appeal had determined that the writing of such letters to book distributors was a legitimate legal purpose. The defendant applied to the High Court for an order pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts striking out the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or was frivolous and/or vexatious. Further and alternatively, the defendant sought an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court dismissing the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it was an abuse of process and/or otherwise bound to fail and/or was frivolous and/or was vexatious. The core of the defendant’s argument was that the High Court and the Court of Appeal had previously found that the actions of the defendant of which the plaintiff complained were not actionable in law.

Held by Allen J that if, strictly speaking, the defendant’s entitlement to have written the letter the subject of these proceedings was not res judicata, the issue as to the defendant’s entitlement in principle to write such letters had been finally and conclusively determined. Allen J held that, to the extent that the plaintiff sought to relitigate the defendant’s entitlement in principle to write to distributors, it was vexatious. Allen J noted that the letter the subject of these proceedings was in substantially the same terms as those the subject of the previous decisions. Allen J held that there was no issue as to the fact that the letter was written, or as to by whom or to whom it was written; neither was there any issue as to the defendant’s motive or purpose in writing the letter. Allen J held that the motive and purpose was the same as that previously found to be a legitimate legal purpose. Allen J held that the plaintiff’s assertion that the letter was “deliberately and maliciously misleading” was based upon a misunderstanding of the law and that it was unsupported by the facts pleaded. Allen J accepted the plaintiff’s submission that the bar on an application such as this was a high one and that the jurisdiction which had been invoked was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Allen J held that, on the uncontested facts, the plaintiff’s case was bound in law to fail; accordingly, it was frivolous. Allen J held that the plaintiff’s object in bringing these proceedings was to seek to revive and relitigate issues which had been finally and conclusively decided against him. Allen J held that to allow it to proceed would be to expose the defendant to the trouble and expense of defending it, and would be a waste of court time; accordingly, it was vexatious.

Allen J held that the defendant was entitled to the order which it sought.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Allen delivered on the 1st day of October, 2019

Introduction

1 This is an application on behalf of the defendant for an order pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts striking out the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and/or is frivolous and/or vexatious.

2 Further and alternatively, the defendant seeks an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it is an abuse of process and/or otherwise bound to fail and/or is frivolous and/or is vexatious.

3 The core of the defendant's argument is that the High Court and the Court of Appeal have previously found, in another action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, that the actions of the defendant of which the plaintiff complains are not actionable in law.

Background

4 The plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant, which owns and operates a commercial thoroughbred breeding and racing business from a stud farm in County Tipperary.

5 The plaintiff was employed by the defendant for nine years ending on 16th January, 2015. In August 2014 the plaintiff made a complaint to the Labour Relations Commission arising out of his employment. That complaint was compromised upon terms reduced to writing and signed by the plaintiff and on behalf of the defendant on 12th December, 2014. By the settlement agreement the plaintiff was to be paid, and he was paid, €30,000 as a gesture of appreciation for his service. It was agreed that the plaintiff would, and he did, retire from his employment on 16th January, 2015.

6 Of particular relevance to this application were clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the settlement agreement which provided:-

“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 that they will not make any derogatory comments about each other at any time in the future.”

7 In the summer of 2015 it came to the defendant's notice that the plaintiff was writing a book about Coolmore Stud. The defendant, by its solicitors, wrote to the plaintiff to remind him of his obligations under the settlement agreement and requested a copy of the manuscript so that it could be satisfied that publication of the book would not breach the agreement. The plaintiff replied that he had complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and declined to provide a copy of the manuscript.

8 On 23rd November, 2015 the plaintiff published his book, which was called “The Black Horse Inside Coolmore”.

9 The defendant took the view that the book (1) breached the plaintiff's obligations of confidentiality, (2) disclosed records relating to animals and clients, (3) was replete with derogatory comments about the defendant, (4) was defamatory of the defendant and others, and (5) infringed the copyright of a number of third parties.

10 On 26th November, 2015 the defendant, by its solicitors, wrote to Amazon.eu Sarl, UK branch, c/o Amazon UK Services Ltd., Legal Department, and in the following days and weeks wrote to a number of booksellers in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. The letters were headed “NOTICE OF DEFAMATORY CONTENT” and conveyed the defendant's view that the book contained material which was defamatory of the defendant, its clients, customers, owners and staff. The letters also expressed the defendant's belief that the book breached the plaintiff's confidentiality obligations and the defendant's intellectual property rights, privacy rights, and other legal rights. The defendant apprehended that the publication of the book might cause enormous reputational damage and could damage its business and business relationships. The letters invited the distributors and retailers to confirm that they would not sell or distribute the book and warned that unless such confirmation was provided, the defendant would hold them liable for any damage suffered by sales of the book through their shops or websites, and would rely on the letters to show that they had been put on notice of the matters complained of.

11 The plaintiff, in correspondence, protested that the defendant was not entitled to write the letters to the distributors and retailers and invited the defendant to sue him, saying that he would defend the book line by line.

The 2016 action

12 On 13th April, 2016 the plaintiff issued a plenary summons against the defendant and immediately applied to the High Court for injunctions:-

“(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 withdrawin 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;

(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.”

13 By an order made on 24th June, 2016, for the reasons given in a comprehensive written judgment delivered on 14th June, 2016 [2016] IEHC 329 the High Court (Costello J.) refused the plaintiff's application.

14 Costello J. held that the plaintiff had not made out an arguable case that the writing of the letters had been wrong. She went on to find that, in any event, the plaintiff had not established that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the plaintiff's behaviour had been such that it would not have been appropriate for the court to grant equitable relief. Critically, however, the foundation of the judgment was that the plaintiff had no arguable case that the defendant was not entitled to have written the...