Egan -v- Fenlon [2016] IEHC 566 (12 October 2016)

Egan -v- Fenlon [2016] IEHC 566 (12 October 2016)

The plaintiff has not established that damages would be inadequate or that the wide-ranging interlocutory reliefs sought are necessary or enforceable. The Court is not satisfied that the defendant will commit a wrong requiring restraint, particularly in light of the open offer to redact the impugned resolution. The application for interlocutory injunction is refused.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 566
Parties
Plaintiff: William J. P. Egan; Defendant: Michael Fenlon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunction in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interlocutory Injunction)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Defamation—publication, Constitutional Right to Good Name, Relief Scope and Supervision
Defamation Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Defamation—publication Constitutional Right to Good Name Relief Scope and Supervision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William J. P. Egan

Plaintiff

Michael Fenlon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunction in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interlocutory Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory injunction restraining publication of allegedly defamatory material
  2. 2 Whether the impugned statement is defamatory
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff has not established that damages would be inadequate or that the wide-ranging interlocutory reliefs sought are necessary or enforceable. The Court is not satisfied that the defendant will commit a wrong requiring restraint, particularly in light of the open offer to redact the impugned resolution. The application for interlocutory injunction is refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Reliefs sought in the Notice of Motion dated 6th October 2016 (paragraphs 1 to 3) are refused.