Title: Thomas Crosbie Holdings & Ors -v- Webprint Concepts Ltd
HIGH COURT
Judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on January 9th, 2008
JUDGMENT
In the circumstances where the plaintiff's financial position allows them to pay for the disputed services, and non-payment could threaten the financial position of the defendant, the balance of convenience dictates that the services should be paid for on a without-prejudice basis.
BACKGROUND
The case concerned a dispute between Thomas Crosbie Holdings and their printers Webprint about certain printing services: the inclusion of inserts into their newspapers, the printing of supplements and the service of trimming.
Disagreements arose between the parties about payment for the services, and Webprint initiated High Court proceedings seeking a total payment of €11,260,699.78 due up to December 14th, 2007, and claiming damages for breach of contract.
The plaintiffs, Thomas Crosbie Holdings, disputed the claim and indicated they would be seeking damages for breach of contract.
The defendants indicated they would continue to provide the services on a without-prejudice basis, but only if paid €876,143.67 plus interest of €50,492.85 for the inserts, being the amount owed up to December 14th, 2007, and a weekly amount as invoiced for subsequent inserts.
In relation to printing new supplements, they stated they would do so if paid €308,153.89, which they said was the historic debt, along with €33,305.21 interest, and be paid for additional supplements on a weekly basis.
They also agreed to continue to provide trimming on a without-prejudice basis, provided it was paid for.
The plaintiffs agreed to pay the money claimed, but only subject to certain set-offs, which thus amounted to approximately €400,000.
They applied ex parte to the High Court on January 4th, seeking an injunction directing the defendants to provide the services, and an interim injunction was granted by Mr Justice Clarke.
A mandatory injunction was then sought and was heard by Mr Justice Hedigan.
Mr Justice Hedigan said that there was a plethora of issues to be tried between the parties, but the real issue here was where the balance of convenience lay.
"It is common case that whilst the financial position of the plaintiffs is a strong one, the same cannot be said of the defendants. Their position at the present moment is a threatened one. Were the court to decide to issue a mandatory order at this stage directing the defendants to provide the services required, this order might well be in existence for a substantial period of time, when it is considered that following a Commercial Court decision there might follow an appeal to the Supreme Court," he said.
DECISION
He said that the plaintiffs were in a much stronger position than the defendants to survive the financial challenge that would ensue were they to meet the demands made for payment.
This would also secure the financial position of the defendants and make them a mark for damages, should the plaintiffs ultimately win their action.
The position of the plaintiffs could be maintained on the basis of payment of monies to the defendants on a without-prejudice basis.
Accordingly, Mr Justice Hedigan refused the application.
The full judgment is available on www.courts.ie
Solicitors: Ronan, Daly, Jermyn, South Mall, Cork (for the plaintiff); Mason, Hayes & Curran, South Bank House, Barrow St, Dublin 4 (for the defendant)