The High Court refused an application by Thomas Crosbie Holdings and other plaintiffs for an interlocutory order requiring Webprint Concepts Limited to continue providing newspaper inserts, printing supplements and trimming services during a dispute over a printing agreement.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 9 January 2008. He said there was an issue to be tried, with numerous disputes between the parties about their master printing agreement. The application concerned interim relief; the court did not decide the parties’ underlying contractual claims.
The agreement, dated 22 April 2005, covered printing services for the Irish Examiner, The Sunday Business Post, The Evening Echo and other regional newspapers. Webprint had begun printing for the plaintiffs in December 2005. A separate action issued by Webprint on 21 December 2007 claimed €11,260,699.78 said to be due through 14 December 2007, together with damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs disputed that claim and said they would seek damages themselves.
In a 3 January 2008 letter, Webprint said it would continue providing inserts and printing new supplements on a without-prejudice basis if the plaintiffs paid specified historic sums and agreed to pay future invoices weekly. For trimming, it required payment for services already provided and agreement on a future rate. The plaintiffs said withdrawal of the services would seriously damage their publications and might undermine their ability to compete. Webprint maintained it was willing and able to provide the services if paid, and argued that trimming was not specified in the agreement.
The plaintiffs obtained an interim order on 4 January, due to expire on 8 January. In considering the application, the judge focused on the balance of convenience. He said the plaintiffs faced potentially substantial harm in a competitive market, but the defendants’ financial position was threatened, while the plaintiffs were in a stronger position to meet the payment demands. Payment would also improve Webprint’s financial position and help secure its ability to pay damages if the plaintiffs ultimately succeeded.
The judge also noted that an order for trimming would require Webprint to provide a service without payment, although the agreement did not expressly specify it. Whether trimming was implicit in newspaper production could not be decided at this stage. He concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and refused the application. The judgment did not determine the disputed debt, the parties’ ultimate contractual rights or whether trimming was an implied contractual service.