Mac Cabe v Joynt

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 February 1900
• Docket Number: (1898. No. 10,811.)
• Date: 26 February 1900
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Mac Cabe

and

Joynt (1).

Q. B. Div.

(1898. No. 10,811.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1901.

Libel — Privilege — Acts done in the course of justice — Irregular registration of a Chancery order as a judgment — Action “pending”

A sued B for damages in the Vice-Chancellor's Court; and, at the hearing, upon a consent being entered into between the parties, the Court ordered the consent to be received, and that all further proceedings in the action should be “stayed on the terms therein mentioned,” viz. that B should pay to A the sum of £327 forthwith, and costs of suit when taxed and ascertained; that on payment of said sums all further proceedings be stayed, and that, in default, A should be at liberty to issue execution. B paid the £327, but the costs being still due but untaxed, A's solicitor, treating this order as a “judgment,” applied for an office copy of same, caused it to be entered in the Records and Writs Office as a judgment, obtained the certificate or memorandum of the officer of that department, and thereupon caused the order to be registered as a judgment against the defendant in the Judgments Registry Office. The Vice-Chancellor having set aside the entry, in the Records and Writs Office, of the order, as a judgment, and its registration, as irregular, B sued A for libel. On new trial motion:—

Held, that the publications complained of, viz. the handing of the draft memorandum to the officer of the Records and Writs Office for authentication by him, and the handing of the same document, so authenticated, to the Registrar of Judgments for registration—were privileged, as being steps taken, however irregularly, in the course of judicial proceedings; and held, further, that the fact of “further proceedings being stayed” did not affect the defendant's privilege.

Kennedy v. Hilliard (10 Ir. C. L. R. 195) followed.

New Trial Motion.

This was an action brought to recover damages, laid at £5000, for maliciously causing judgment to be entered and registered against the plaintiff, and for libel.

The defendant had sued the plaintiff and another (Bulger) in the Vice-Chancellor's Court for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation

in connexion with the flotation of a limited liability company, and on the day fixed for the hearing of the cause (8th June, 1898), the case being called, and the pleadings opened, a consent was entered into between the parties, which was received by the Court and an order made thereon on the following terms:—

“This action coining on for trial … upon opening of the matter and upon hearing what was alleged by said counsel respectively, who stated that the parties had agreed to the terms of a consent settling this action, and upon reading the said consent, dated the 1st day of June, 1898, signed by the plaintiff and the defendants and their respective solicitors, this Court doth order that the said consent (a copy of which is hereto annexed) be and the same is hereby received, and that all further proceedings in this action be stayed on the terms therein mentioned.…”

COPY CONSENT REFERRED TO.

“It is hereby consented and agreed by and between the parties hereto, testified by their signatures and those of their respective solicitors,

“That the defendants pay to the plaintiff the sum of £327 14s. 7d., in full discharge of all matters sued on in this action within one week from this date.

“2. That the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs, taxed and ascertained between party and party, within one week from date of Taxing Master's certificate.

“3. That said costs be referred to the Taxing Master to be taxed on the higher scale.

“4. That on payment of the said sums within the times limited herein all further proceedings in this action be stayed, and that the plaintiff execute a transfer to the defendants of the fifty shares he now holds in the Components Tube Company, Limited.

“5. That in default of payment of debt or costs within the times limited herein plaintiff issue execution for same without further notice.

“6. That this consent be made a Rule of Court at the time fixed for the hearing of this action.”

The defendants, on the following day (9th June), paid the sum of £327 14s. 7d. to Joynt's solicitor, leaving the costs (untaxed) still due. Joynt's solicitor applied for a copy of this order as “a judgment,” and obtained an attested or office copy endorsed as a “judgment” of the Court; and, on the 29th June, brought the attested copy of the order of the 8th to the Record and Writ Office, with the necessary forms filled up, for the purpose of obtaining the memorandum or certificate of the official of that department of the entry of “the judgment,” with a view to its registration as a judgment in the office for the registration of judgments. Having obtained the memorandum or certificate, Joynt's solicitor brought same to the Judgments Registry Office, and (after some discussion, as there was but one precedent known for such registration of a Chancery judgment) caused the same to be registered as an ordinary common-law judgment would be.

The “judgment” appeared in Stubbs’ Mercantile Gazette, and in two others during the following week. No intimation was given to the officers that the £327 had been paid, and the only notice the defendants received of the entry and registration of the order as a judgment was a letter dated 30th June, 1898, from Joynt's solicitor informing them of the registration so as to allow of their inserting a note in the trades gazettes that the debt had been discharged. Joynt was not aware at the time of what had been done by his solicitor. Subsequently, upon a motion instituted by both defendants, the Vice-Chancellor ordered “that the entry of such order as a judgment in the cause book kept by the Clerk of the Records and Writs be vacated, as also the entry thereof in the books of the Registry of Judgments Office,” with costs; see the report of this motion, Joynt v. Mac Cabe (1).

MacCabe now sued Joynt for maliciously entering judgment and for maliciously causing judgment to be registered against him, and for libel.

The statement of claim, after alleging (paragraph 1) that the plaintiff was proprietor of a newspaper called The Irish Field, of large circulation and a favourite medium of advertisement, continued as follows:—

“2. The defendant maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause, signed judgment against the plaintiff for £327 14s. 7d., for debt and damages and costs (unascertained) on the said 29th day of June, 1898, and caused and procured the said judgment to be registered in the Office for Registering Judgments in Ireland. At the date of the defendant's marking said judgment against the plaintiff as aforesaid, the said sum of £327 14s. 7d. had long since

been paid and satisfied by the plaintiff and one Daniel Delaney Bulger, and at the date of the marking of the said judgment no sum was due by the plaintiff to the defendant for debt or damages.

Par. 3 was also, in libel, to the same effect as par. 2, with variations immaterial to be stated.

“4. The defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published, or caused or procured to be written and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following:—

Name of Defendant or Person whose Estate is intended to be affected thereby.	Usual or last known place of abode of such person.	Title, Trade, or Profession of such person.
Frederick Faber MacCabe,..	Belville, Donnybrook, Co. Dublin,	Bachelor of Medicine.
High Court of Justice in Ireland, Chancery Division, Vice-Chancellor.
Date of Judgment, June 8th, 1898.
Amount of Debt or Damages, £327 14s. 7d.
Amount of Costs, Unascertained.
Name of the Plaintiff.	Usual or last known place of abode of such person.	Title, Trade, or Profession of such person.
Alfred Lane Joynt,	62, Upper Mount-street, City of Dublin,	Solicitor.

The judgment described in the foregoing memorandum was registered in the Office of Registration of Judgments on the 29th June, 1898, and is contained in Book 38, page 476.

“5. The defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published, or caused or procured to be written and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following—[setting out the same words], meaning thereby that the plaintiff was unable to discharge his legal obligations.

“6. The defendants falsely and maliciously wrote and published, or caused or procured to be written and published, of and concerning the plaintiff the following words—[setting out the words as before] … meaning thereby that the defendant had, on the 8th day of June, 1898, in the Court of the Right Honorable the Vice-Chancellor of Ireland, recovered a judgment against the plaintiff and one Daniel Delaney Bulger, for a sum of £327 14s. 7d., for debt and damages, besides an unascertained sum for costs, and that the said principal sum of £327...