THE Supreme Court yesterday dismissed an appeal by a Cork solicitors' firm against the High Court's refusal to stop Cork Examiner Publications Ltd publishing a photograph taken on its premises.
The appeal was brought by Denis O'Sullivan and Co, solicitors of St Patrick's Buildings, Patrick Street, Cork, who represent Dr James Barry, the Cork doctor at the centre of allegations that he video taped female patients during medical examinations.
The High Court on March 5th granted a temporary injunction restraining Cork Examiner Publications and its servant or agents from trespassing at the Patrick Street offices.
It was alleged that a reporter and photographer from the Cork Examiner had entered the solicitors offices and a photograph was taken of a letter for Mr O'Sullivan being handed to a receptionist.
Mr Justice Barron last Monday refused to grant an interlocutory injunction (a restraining order which would have continued until the trial of the action). He said the Cork Examiner could not be prevented from publishing a photograph taken outside the premises of a reporter holding the letter.
In his view, the second photograph was of much less significance. It merely showed an envelope being handed to somebody, and there was nothing to indicate it was taken inside the solicitor's office.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, giving the decision yesterday, said there was no evidence to suggest that the trespass, if it had occurred, was likely to be continued, and there was no justification for granting an injunction in that regard.
The primary injunction sought by Mr O'Sullivan related to the publishing of a photograph. Mr O'Sullivan alleged the newspaper's representatives were trespassing in his offices when a photograph was taken of a Cork Examiner representative handing a letter to a receptionist employed by Mr O'Sullivan.
The Chief Justice said he agreed wholeheartedly with Mr Justice Barron's decision when he held that Mr O'Sullivan had established that there was an arguable case, but damages would be an adequate remedy if Mr O'Sullivan succeeded.
Mr John White SC, for Mr O'Sullivan, said the only relevant consent to take a photograph was that of Mr O'Sullivan, and it was clear he was never asked. If photographs were to be taken, then permission had to be sought.
Mr Justice Hamilton said Mr Justice Barron had held that Mr O'Sullivan had a good case to argue, that the Cork Examiner representatives had been trespassing and took a photograph unlawfully.
Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for Cork Examiner Publications, said there was an implied permission to come on to the premises to conduct business, and this was what the Cork Examiner representatives were doing.
Mr Justice Hamilton asked what the purpose was of bringing a photographer. Mr Sreenan said it was to provide visual proof of the letter being delivered.
Mr Sreenan said the actions of, the Cork Examiner representatives did not amount to an unlawful act.