The High Court has refused William Jones’s application for interlocutory injunctions against Coolmore Stud over letters the stud’s solicitors sent to retailers concerning his book, *The Black Horse Inside Coolmore*.
Jones, a former Coolmore employee, sought orders to stop further legal warnings to bookshops and websites, require earlier warnings to be withdrawn, declare the book non-defamatory and compel disclosure of evidence behind Coolmore’s complaints. The application was heard at an interlocutory stage; the court did not decide a defamation action or grant a declaration on the book’s content.
The dispute followed a written agreement made when Jones’s employment ended. It included confidentiality obligations, a restriction on disclosing records relating to animals or clients, and a commitment by both parties not to make derogatory comments. Coolmore paid Jones €30,000 under the agreement. He published the book in November 2015.
Coolmore alleged that the book breached the agreement, defamed the stud and others, and infringed privacy and copyright. Jones denied those allegations. Coolmore’s solicitors wrote to Amazon and other retailers asserting that the book contained defamatory material and warning of potential liability if sales continued. The judgment records that Amazon and the booksellers withdrew the book from sale.
Justice Costello held that Jones had not shown an arguable cause of action based on the letters. A person alleging defamation may notify retailers and call on a publisher to address the complaint before any court has ruled on whether the material is defamatory, the judge said. The court also found that Coolmore was not obliged to sue Jones, that the letters did not have to set out every detail of a prospective defamation case, and that Jones’s claim that he could prove the book’s truth did not itself make the letters actionable.
The judge said Jones had not established that damages would be inadequate, noting his own references to lost sales and a possible distribution deal. She also considered evidence submitted by Coolmore about the agreement and alleged copyright copying. For the interlocutory application, she proceeded on the basis that the agreement remained valid and found that passages and material identified in the evidence prima facie breached it. She concluded that equitable relief would be inappropriate in the circumstances.
The court refused all the requested interlocutory relief. The judgment did not determine a final defamation claim against Jones or make a trial finding on every allegation concerning the book.