DAMAGES of £515,000 were awarded by a High Court jury yesterday to a firm of insurance brokers which claimed it was defamed by the Irish Brokers Association (IBA).
The action was taken by Mr Albert Dawson (62), Knocknashee, Goatstown, Dublin, and his brother, Mr Dudley Dawson (58), Maywood Drive, Raheny, Dublin, trading as A E Dawson and Sons, Maywood Drive, Raheny. The plaintiffs represented themselves in court.
After a 12 day hearing of the action, Mr Justice Barron ruled that the case was clearly one of defamation. The defendants, he said, could not claim qualified privilege in relation to the publication of a circular which stated that the plaintiffs' membership of the association had been terminated.
Mr Justice Barron said the association did have qualified privilege but in this case had exceeded, if not abused, it and destroyed any question of qualified privilege.
The IBA had failed to identify the alleged grounds for its action or give ample opportunity for the person(s) against whom the claims were made to state their case before making a decision on the matter.
In its defence, the IBA had submitted that, if the contents of the circular were untrue or unjustified, the occasion of publication was one of qualified privilege.
The plaintiffs claimed that by a circular of October 1st, 1991, the IBA required certain information and documentation from them in order to ensure that they, as members, were acting in compliance with the Insurance Act 1989. The plaintiffs duly furnished a completed renewal form.
They supplied all necessary evidence of compliance with the Act and, in particular, furnished an accountant's report of compliance, completed by Mr Albert Dawson, a qualified accountant.
About February 1992, the IBA accepted payment tendered for the renewal subscription and a completed form, together with the accountant's report dated February 23rd, 1992, completed by Mr Albert Dawson.
By letter of March 9th, 1992, the IBA required the plaintiffs to supply an accountant's report signed by an "independent accountant/auditor" and refused to accept the reports previously furnished, it was claimed. Prior to March 1992, the association and its predecessor had accepted reports prepared by Mr Albert Dawson without any requirement for an independent accountant's report.
It was claimed the requirement by the association was specified only after the plaintiffs had raised issues over the manner in which the affairs of the IBA and its predecessors had been conducted.
It was also claimed that, in April 1992, the association advised the plaintiffs that it would have no alternative but to advise the then Department of Industry and Commerce, the Insurance Intermediary Compliance Bureau and all insurance companies with which the plaintiffs held agencies that, from April 21st, 1992, plaintiffs' membership of the IBA would be terminated.
By letter of April 22nd, 1992, the IBA notified insurance companies with which the plaintiffs held agencies and the Insurance Intermediary Compliance Bureau of the alleged termination of membership.
The plaintiffs claim the association had not terminated validly or at all their membership. They had at all times complied with the requirements of membership of the IBA and of the Insurance Act.
In its defence, the IBA admitted the plaintiffs were members but denied that if they completed any renewal form or furnished an accountant's report that it had accepted them.
The jury, which only had to decide the amount of damages, returned its verdict after an absence of nearly three hours.
On the application of Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the defence, Mr Justice Barron put a stay of one month on the judgment in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Mr Cooney said the principal ground of an appeal would be on the question of qualified privilege.
After the hearing, Mr Albert Dawson said: "It seems a very just decision. It seems to bear a relationship to the damage done. It's round about what we thought."
