The High Court granted limited interlocutory injunctions in a dispute arising from a strike at Marine Terminals Limited, while declining to restrain most of the conduct challenged by the company and its general manager. The court did not decide the disputed allegations finally; it found fair questions to be tried and set temporary limits pending the action’s hearing.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Feeney on 15 September 2009, concerned events at a protest outside Dublin Port on 24 August and incidents in Athy and at a garage forecourt on 27 August. The strike had been under way since 3 July.
The court refused an injunction based on the protest march’s later trespass onto the company’s premises. The plaintiffs argued that union representatives had encouraged or anticipated the illegal entry. The defendants denied knowing of or supporting it. The judge accepted those denials for the interlocutory application and found the plaintiffs had not established an arguable case linking the defendants to the trespass. He also said the evidence did not yet show a repeated pattern of illegal activity that would justify broader intervention. The plaintiffs were given liberty to apply if significant or repeated illegal acts occurred alongside union-backed pickets or marches.
The court did grant an injunction against the third, fourth and fifth defendants over the forecourt encounter with an employee, identified in the judgment as Mr O’Gara. He alleged that he was threatened and intimidated; one defendant described the conversation as benign. The judge said the conflicting accounts could not be resolved at this stage, but found a fair question to be tried and concluded that the balance of convenience favoured limited relief.
A separate injunction applied to all defendants in relation to flyers posted in Athy identifying a non-striking worker, named in the judgment as Brian Dooley, as a “scab”. The court found a fair question to be tried about whether the campaign was intended to coerce or threaten him, invade his privacy or interfere with his right to work, and whether the union supported it. The union denied involvement. Those matters remained for oral evidence at trial.
Balancing freedom of expression against the worker’s rights, the judge limited the order to flyers that personally identify particular people by name or address. The court continued an order concerning the retention of documents and electronic and other records. It refused the remaining relief sought under paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice of motion. Costs were reserved.