The High Court refused solicitor William J.P. Egan’s application for interlocutory injunctions over a proposed resolution in the National Association of Regional Game Councils’ (NARGC) annual report. The resolution alleged that Egan had failed to honour a mediated agreement and proposed restrictions on NARGC members engaging his firm.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered the judgment on 12 October 2016. The application sought orders restraining Michael Fenlon, the NARGC chairman, and others from saying Egan had breached the agreement, circulating the resolution, or publishing the annual report while it contained the resolution.
The court recorded that the agreement, reached on 31 March 2016, provided for the NARGC to pay Egan’s professional fees and outlays for 22 cases within 28 days. It included a term headed “Cessation of any professional involvement with NARGC”. The judgment did not decide whether that term covered Egan’s later representation of other parties involved in litigation with the association.
The proposed resolution, put forward by the Wicklow Regional Game Council for the NARGC’s 47th annual general meeting, said no NARGC body should engage Egan’s firm in dealings with the association. It also proposed disciplinary consequences for members who did so and stated that NARGC indemnities would be void from the date the firm was engaged. Egan’s counsel argued that the text accused him of breaching the settlement and acting unethically. Fenlon disputed responsibility for drafting or proposing it, while acknowledging he was on the executive committee that authorised publication of the annual report.
During the proceedings, Fenlon offered to call an executive committee meeting to propose removing the resolution from the report, collecting copies and distributing a replacement page at the AGM. He said he would urge the committee to approve those steps but could not guarantee its decision. The court also noted a letter saying Wexford Regional Game Council intended to distribute a report with the resolution removed.
The judge did not decide whether the resolution was defamatory or whether Fenlon was legally responsible for its publication. He said those issues, including the disputed meaning of the mediated term and possible defences, required further consideration and were not suitable for determination on untested affidavit evidence at this stage. The court also considered the proposed orders too broad and difficult to supervise, and was not satisfied that damages would be inadequate if Egan succeeded at trial.
The court refused the three reliefs sought in the notice of motion, as limited during the hearing. It said Egan could return for interlocutory relief if there was evidence that Fenlon failed to comply with his offer to assist in limiting further circulation. The judgment did not determine the underlying defamation claim.