Marine Terminals Ltd & Rafferty v Loughman and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE FEENEY |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 620 |
| Docket Number | No. 7908p/2009 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 15 September 2009 |
[2009] IEHC 620
THE HIGH COURT
HERRITY v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS (IRL) LTD 2009 1 IR 316 2008/28/6242 2008 IEHC 249
NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS v SOCIETY OF GRAPHICAL & ALLIED TRADES (SOGAT) 1982 & ORS 1987 ICR 181 1986 IRLR 337
EI CO LTD v KENNEDY & ORS 1968 IR 69
TRADE UNIONS
Official trade dispute
Injunction- Employer's premises - Picket - Protest demonstration and speeches - Escalation of dispute - Threats and intimidation of employees - Naming and shaming campaign - Fly posting - Illegal entry and trespass on premises - Demonstrations accompanied by verbal abuse, threats and violence - Liability of trade unions and officials for tortious acts - Right to protest - Freedom of expression - Whether interlocutory injunctions to be granted - Whether arguable case for defendants involvement in tortuous acts raised - Disputed versions of events - Clear and unequivocal denial - Whether fair question to be tried - Balance of convenience - Whether damages adequate remedy -- Difficulties in quantifying damages - Whether any limit on freedom of expression to be proportionate and balanced - Herrity v Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd [2008] IEHC 249, [2009] IR 316; Newsgroup Limited v Society of Graphical and Allied Trades [1987] ICR 181 and EI Co Ltd v Kennedy [1968] IR 69 considered; Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry and Energy (No 2) [1983] IR 88 applied - Partial injunction granted (2009/7980P - Feeney J - 15/9/2009) [2009] IEHC 620
Marine Terminals Ltd v Loughman
Facts The first named plaintiff was a firm involved in the trade of the provision of marine and dock services and the second named plaintiff was the general manager of that company. Both plaintiffs sought interlocutory relief against the 12 named defendants and all persons having notice of the making of any order from carrying out certain activities. The first to fifth named defendants were all employees or former employees of the first named plaintiff and they had since 3 July 2009 been engaged in an official trade dispute with the first named plaintiff. The remaining defendants were essentially trade unions/members. These proceedings arose of three primary events, namely a protest march, a visit to Athy by a number of the defendants for the purposes of putting up a number of fly posters identifying a particular person and making comments about that person and thirdly, an incident which occurred in a filling station which related to a worker associated with the plaintiff companies and a number of the defendants. There was a dispute in respect of the facts of that third incident but the individual concerned swore on affidavit that he was called a 'scab' and was threatened by the third, fourth and fifth named defendants. The court was supplied with transcripts of speeches and video footage of the protest march and there was also evidence of a naming and shaming campaign and the individual identified in the fly posters swore on affidavit that he felt threatened by that campaign.
Held by Feeney J. in granting two injunctions: That the right to freedom of expression extended to speeches made at a protest march and having read those speeches and heard the extracts on the video recording the court was satisfied that the contents of those speeches could not at this point in time give rise to a right to injunct such conduct. At this interlocutory stage the court could not decide between the disputed versions regarding what occurred at the filling station. However, on the application of the test identified in the Campus Oil Case the court was satisfied that there was an arguable case that there was a fair question to be tried in relation to the issue as to whether threats or intimidation took place on that occasion. Having regard to the defendants' denial of threats or intimidation and their stated desire not to intimidate or threaten anybody, any inconvenience caused to them by the imposition of an injunction would be of inconsequential effect. Furthermore, damages would not be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in relation to the issue of threats given the difficulty in quantifying damages in relation to such matters. An injunction was granted against the third, fourth and fifth named defendants in the terms sought. The court was satisfied that there was also a case to answer in relation to the fly posters and there was a fair issue to be tried in relation to that issue. Having balanced the right to freedom of expression and on the other hand the right to work, right to privacy and the rights of a person to ensure a trade union does not engage in conduct detrimental to the interests of an employee, it was proportionate and correct to grant an injunction in this case, limited to the prohibition of the personal identification by name or address of particular persons.
Reporter: L.O'S.
I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named matter.
MR. JUSTICE FEENEY: The two Plaintiffs seek interlocutory injunctive relief against 12 named Defendants and all persons having notice of the making of any order from carrying out certain activities. The activities in respect of which injunctive relief is sought are set forth at paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice of motion which has been issued herein. Injunctive relief is also sought at paragraph 7 in relation to the retention of documents and certain electronic and other records and there is no issue or contention in relation to that matter.
The first Plaintiff is a firm involved in the trade of the provision of marine and dock services and the second named Plaintiff is the general manager of that company. The first and fifth named Defendants are all employees or former employees of the first named Plaintiff and they have been since the 3rd July 2009 engaged in an official trade dispute with the first named Plaintiff. There is no issue but that there is in existence a trade dispute involving the Plaintiff company and a number of the Defendants. The first and fifth named Defendants are part of a group of striking workers who have placed pickets on the first named Plaintiff's premises in the Dublin docks, such pickets being in furtherance of the accepted trade dispute.
The sixth named Defendant, the Irish congress of Trade Unions is an organisation for the Irish trade union movement. It is a registered friendly society with a membership throughout the 32 counties of Ireland and it has its registered offices in Parnell square in Dublin. That body has a number of statutory functions and operates as the representative of the trade union movement in relation to a number of committees and tribunals.
The seventh named Defendant is the assistant general secretary of the Irish congress of Trade Unions and is responsible for what is called its northern Ireland committee.
The eighth defendant is a registered trade union and a registered friendly society. It is the largest trade union in the country and has its offices in Liberty Hall in Dublin.
The ninth named Defendant is a full time employee of SIPTU and is the branch organiser who is responsible for the Dublin port and docks where the official dispute is taking place.
The tenth Defendant is a full time employee of SIPTU and is the regional organiser who has the day to day responsibility in relation to the ongoing industrial dispute and dealing with the SIPTU members who are on strike.
The eleventh Defendant is the general secretary of the SIPTU trade union and the twelfth defendant is a representative of an organisation known as the International Transport workers Federation which is known in short as the ITF.
There has been a strike in existence since the 3rd July this year and it is common case there is in existence an industrial dispute between the Plaintiff and some of its workers including a number of the Defendants. The strike has proceeded for a number of weeks and there has been earlier proceedings which are not directly relevant to this action. There was also, at one stage, a blockade or interference with the passage of ships entering Dublin Port which resulted in action being taken by the Dublin Port Authority in relation to what was identified within those separate proceedings as the illegal act of interfering with the passage of boats.
These proceedings arise out of a number of events that occurred on different dates in late August of this year. There are three primary events which are the subject matter of contention and have been dealt with in affidavit and in argument before this court. The first is a protest march which occurred on the 24th August this year leading to the illegal entry and trespass on to the Plaintiff's premises. The second matter relates to a visit to Athy by a number of the Defendants on the 27th August of this year for the purposes of putting up a number of fly posters identifying a particular person and making comments about that person. The third matter is an incident which occurred in a filling station on the same date which related to a worker associated with the Plaintiff companies and a number of the Defendants and there is a dispute in relation to the facts of that matter and I will return to that later in this judgment.
The evidence available to the Court indicates that on the 12th August of this year SIPTU, the ITF and the ICTU and the union UNITE met for what was identified in a SIPTU document as the identification of a plan to coordinate a...
To continue reading
Request your trial