In the case of Gerard McDonnell trading as Microclean Environmental v. Dawson Adair, the High Court ruled on a libel action involving a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. In this blog post, we will discuss the background of the case, the central issues, and the court’s decision.
Background
Gerard McDonnell, the plaintiff, owns Microclean Environmental, a business providing oil remediation services. Dawson Adair, the defendant, is the managing director of Davies Adair & Partners, a firm of chartered loss adjusters involved in the sphere of oil remediation claims. The plaintiff had sent multiple letters to the defendant, seeking inclusion in their panel of approved oil remediation contractors. The defendant eventually replied with a letter dated 10th November 2005, which the plaintiff considered defamatory. The letter was as follows:
“Dear Sir,
We refer to yours dated 2nd November 2005.
We have no record of previous applications to our company bar one but we have had occasion to consider using your firm and discreet and prudent enquiries were made in the past. Competitors in the profession strongly advised us against using your company on the basis of various criteria.
Firstly, we have been advised by more than one party that your charges are not merely uncompetitive but excessive to a point where bad faith is suspected. Reliable sources whom we respect in the Republic of Ireland have indicated that you have been in litigation over such issues.
Secondly, we have had occasion to examine a sample of your work in the Republic during the course of work in progress and we were alarmed by the poor quality of the procedures and the lack of safety measures. We were called on to the site by a client as consultants for this reason and a conclusion was that your work was far below the standard we would expect. …
You indicate that you are the only specialist oil remediation contractor in Northern Ireland that we have not used. This statement is untrue and indicates poor research. Such a sweeping statement could, in any event, only be made by breach of the Data Protection Act and/or improper access to confidential information. Either way, indiscretion or dishonesty, or both, is suggested by these contentions.
The last time we heard from you we received a solicitor’s letter suggesting that we were acting unfairly in terms of appointments made by this office. Now you write to us inviting to consider your firm …
The chronological order of the correspondence and all of the above indicates that you are a disingenuous entity devoid of good faith and willing to abuse the law on both sides of the Irish border.
On the basis of visual examination of your site work, references from numerous respected colleagues in Ireland and the very dubious content of such correspondence that we have actually received from you we can clearly state that we have no intention of using your firm under any circumstances.”
Key Issues
The primary issues in the case revolved around the allegedly defamatory letter, its publication, and whether the plaintiff was a victim of a real and substantial tort. The letter, which was critical of the plaintiff’s business practices, integrity, and professionalism, was acknowledged as containing strong language and intemperate comments. However, the court needed to consider the issue of publication and whether the plaintiff had suffered a real and substantial tort.
Court’s Decision
The court ultimately agreed with the Master’s decision to strike out the plaintiff’s claim. Although the letter was prima facie defamatory, the court found that it did not give rise to a real and substantial tort. This was due, in part, to the limited publication audience and the fact that damages would likely be very modest if the plaintiff were to be successful at trial.
The court acknowledged that the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim without a substantive trial was an exceptional move. However, in light of the overriding objective and the justified invocation of the court’s process, the court believed this to be the appropriate course of action.
In conclusion, the Gerard McDonnell v. Dawson Adair case demonstrates that while a communication may be defamatory on its face, the court must consider whether it gives rise to a real and substantial tort. In this instance, the court determined that it did not, and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
Ref: GERARD McDONNELL, trading as Microclean Environmental -v- DAWSON ADAIR – [2009] NIQB 93
