The High Court has declined to strike out solicitor William J. P. Egan’s defamation action against members of the National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC), but ruled that he could not continue it solely to seek a correction order.
In a judgment delivered on 4 February 2021, Mr Justice Allen found that a 2019 letter in which Egan said he would not maintain his damages claim had not formally discontinued the action. He ruled that Egan was not entitled to prosecute the case otherwise than as an action for damages for defamation. The judge said he would hear counsel on the precise form of the order; he did not make a final order in the judgment.
The case arose from a proposed resolution circulated before the NARGC’s 2016 annual general meeting. It said that members or regional councils engaging Egan’s firm in dealings with the association could face disciplinary action, and that NARGC indemnity would be void from the date the firm was engaged. Egan alleged that the resolution and other statements defamed him. The defendants denied that the words were defamatory and pleaded, among other matters, qualified privilege, honest opinion and truth.
Egan initially sought damages and other relief, including a correction order under the Defamation Act 2009. In May 2019, after the defendants sought particulars and discovery concerning his professional history, his solicitors wrote that he proposed to waive damages and limit the claim to a correction order and costs. The defendants argued that the letter ended the damages action and left no standalone basis for the correction order, so the proceedings were bound to fail.
The judge held that the Act provides no free-standing right to seek a correction order: it may be made only after the required findings in a defamation action for damages or in connection with a declaratory-order application. He also said the letter did not comply with the formal procedure for discontinuing an action and had not amended the pleadings. The damages claim therefore remained in the case.
Although Allen found that the letter was an ineffective attempt to abandon damages and had been used as a strategic response to the pending discovery and particulars motions, he was not persuaded that it had inadvertently ended the whole action. The defendants’ application to strike out the proceedings was refused. The judgment did not decide whether the alleged statements were defamatory or determine the underlying claim.