The High Court has ordered solicitor William Egan to provide further particulars in his defamation action against 23 defendants and to make limited discovery of orders and determinations concerning his legal practice.
Mr Justice Allen’s 5 October 2021 judgment addressed two applications by the defendants: one seeking replies to a request for particulars and another seeking discovery of documents. The underlying defamation action remained unresolved. The judge listed the motions for mention on 12 October for final orders and costs.
Egan alleges that the first defendant, then chair of the National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC), defamed him in a 2016 complaint to the Law Society, at association meetings and through a proposed resolution circulated in the NARGC’s 2016 annual report. The alleged statements concerned Egan’s decision to act for people in disputes with the association after ending his retainer. The defendants deny that the statements were defamatory and rely on defences including qualified privilege, honest opinion and truth. Those allegations and defences were not determined in this judgment.
The defendants originally sought replies to 23 questions. Most were abandoned or not pressed by the time the motion was heard. The court ordered replies to questions about the alleged injury to Egan’s professional standing, the loss and damage claimed, and occasions on which the first defendant allegedly repeated words to the same effect as the annual report resolution. The judge said the defendants were entitled to know the case they would have to meet, including when and probably where the alleged repetitions occurred. A prior judgment had established that Egan could pursue the action only as a claim for damages.
On discovery, the defendants sought broad records of investigations, complaints and claims concerning Egan’s work as a solicitor. The court ordered discovery in the terms Egan had offered, covering orders from professional investigations and specified orders or determinations made against him. It corrected the offer’s third category so that it covered orders and determinations, not complaints generally.
The judge declined to order discovery of complaints or claims that had not resulted in findings against Egan. He said the mere making of a complaint did not go to a professional person’s reputation and described seeking dissatisfied clients through such material as “fishing”. The court did not decide whether any such complaints existed.
The judge provisionally indicated that costs of both motions should be costs in the cause, meaning they would be dealt with as part of the underlying action. Final orders and costs were left for the listed mention.