BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a Body Corporate established under and by virtue of a charter of King George II, dated 2nd April 1750, as amended by two supplemental charters of Queen Victoria dated the 27th December 1866, and the 14th May 1888. The Society has its registered place of business in the county of the City of Dublin and owns, manages and maintains exhibition grounds and premises at Ballsbridge in the City of Dublin. The Society manages those premises for the purposes of organising and supporting a range of cultural, educational and sporting activities. The Defendant is a married man and resides at 93 Cill Cais, Old Bawn, Tallaght in the County of Dublin. He is an artist and interior decorator by profession. Olivia O'Reilly and Gerard McAuliffe are two employees of the Plaintiff Society and the Society allege that since in or about the month of December 1991 Mr. Yates, the Defendant, has repeatedly intimidated or attempted to intimidate and harass both of those employees while they were acting in the course of their respective duties. The Society maintain that such intimidation and harassment as occurred in relation to both of those employees can be seen from correspondence passing between the Defendant, Mr. Yates, and Ms. O'Reilly and other persons connected with the Society including Ms. O'Reilly's parents. Apart from this correspondence, the Society contends that various other acts of intimidation and harassment of both of those employees, Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe, took place during various shows of the Society and at other events. The Society further alleges that Mr. Yates has been guilty of acts of trespass and nuisance and that he will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to trespass upon the property of the Society and to intimidate and to harass members of the Society's staff. The Society seek injunctive relief and seek damages for trespass, intimidation and nuisance. The Defendant, Mr. Yates, for his part, contends that he has been the victim of intimidation and harassment by the Society its servants or agents. In a lengthy defence, he contends that an attempt was made on his life on the 6th August, 1993 by officers of the Society. He contends that Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe, and associates of theirs, conspired to kill him on that date in August 1993. He alleges that Ms. O'Reilly is responsible for various actions against him including a campaign to damage his trade stand at the Society's exhibitions; to have his property stolen; to refuse access to him to exhibitions at the Society's premises; to have him removed from the Society as a member; Mr. Yates alleges that the R.D.S. is protecting Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe whom he alleges are involved in organised crime. On the 11th August 1994, at the Society's Horse Show, Mr. Yates alleges that he was pushed, abused and assaulted and thrown to the ground by employees of the Royal Dublin Society including Mr. Cleary, the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, Mr. Farrell and two other officers of the Society. In his counterclaim Mr. Yates contends that the Society has published defamatory material about him to members of the Society and to the Council of the Society. He contends that he has been intimidated by various officers of the Society following him around the grounds of the Society at various exhibitions and by members of the Society's staff taking photographs of him at those exhibitions. He alleges that he has been harassed at race meetings at Leopardstown, Naas and Punchestown. Finally he contends that he was wrongfully removed as a member of the Society at a Stated General Meeting of the Society held on the 1st December 1994, at the Society's premises in Ballsbridge. Mr. Yates seeks an Order reinstating him as a member of the Society and setting aside the decision of the Society of the 1st December 1994. He also seeks damages for defamation, intimidation, harassment and negligence.

2. In examining the claims and counterclaims of the Society and Mr. Yates I propose to look separately at a number of matters. Firstly, I propose to look at the history of the exhibitions at the Society in which Mr. Yates was involved. Secondly, I propose to look at the allegations made by both Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. Yates concerning intimidation occurring at race meetings. Thirdly, I propose to look at correspondence which passed between Mr. Yates and various other persons being either officers of the Society or persons connected with the Society or Ms. O'Reilly. Fourthly, I propose to look at the various applications that have been made to the Circuit Court and this Court in relation to the ongoing dispute between Mr. Yates, Ms. O'Reilly and the Society. Fifthly, I propose to look at the question of certain paintings executed by Mr. Yates which the Society contends are part and parcel of the intimidation of Ms. O'Reilly. Sixthly, I propose to look at the incident on Sandymount Strand during which Mr. Yates alleges that he was assaulted and that the assault was orchestrated by Mr. McAuliffe and Ms. O'Reilly. Finally, I propose to look at certain incidents during 1995 when Mr. Yates sought to serve certain court documents on members of the Society at the Society's premises in the R.D.S. and elsewhere.

3. Mr. Yates first became an exhibitor at the Society's shows in the Spring Show of 1986. What was on sale at his exhibition stand mainly comprised flat stones with paintings on them, flat pieces of wood on which christian names or the names of soccer teams were painted. In addition he also sold certificates of one kind or another, for example, certifying that John was "a member of Manchester United Supporters Club". Ms. O'Reilly had become a temporary secretary at the Royal Dublin Society in August of 1980. She was subsequently made permanent and at the date of the hearing of this Action and at all material times to these proceedings she was a sales and exhibition executive. Her function was to look after the sale of trade space at the Society's exhibition and to promote the R.D.S. as an event venue. Her family home was at Rathmore in Co. Kildare but she had a town house in Sandymount in Dublin. At all material times her superior was Gerard McAuliffe who was the Deputy Chief Executive in the commercial office. He had been with the Society for a period of thirty years. Mr. Yates met Ms. O'Reilly at the 1987 Spring Show and had a conversation with her. In his own words, he then regarded her as having "a quiet beauty" about her. Mr. Yates was an exhibitor at the 1989 Spring Show. At that Spring Show a number of his displayed items were stolen. He gave evidence that other stand holders had their goods stolen at that Spring Show as well. In all, he suggested that some fifty people had had goods stolen, during the course of the Spring Show of that year. His daughters Niamh and Catherine Yates and a Mr. Declan Foley corroborated his view that other persons, apart from himself, had had goods stolen, but none of them (other than Mr. Yates) suggested that there were thefts from fifty stands. Mr. Gerard McAuliffe when asked about the theft of goods at the Spring Show of 1989 could only recall there having been a theft from the stand of a Mrs Roche who dealt in knitted goods. After the Spring Show of 1989, however, it was common case that the security staff who had been responsible for security at the show in that particular year were all let go. Apart from the various objects which Mr. Yates had sold from his stand, as I have already described, he also engaged in face painting of little children which he offered at a cost to each child of £1. When the Horse Show of 1989 came along Mr. Yates found that his stand was moved, from where it had previously been, over to the industrial hall by Ms. O'Reilly. He also found that, in the main hall of the Society, there was a stand where face painting was being done free and another stand which was selling manufactured name plates. Both of these exhibitioners were therefore in competition with him. He complained to Ms. O'Reilly who promised that she would sort the matter out. When the Spring Show of 1991 came along the problem had not been resolved and there were various other stands who were doing manufactured name plates and face painting. Ms. O'Reilly again said that she would sort the matter out and that those stands would not get into the Horse Show. During the course of the 1991 Spring Show Mr. Yates arrived to his stand to discover that it was sprayed all over with a form of aerosol spray. The problem of other face painters and indeed manufacturers of name plates had not been resolved when the Horse Show of 1991 came along. At this stage Mr. Yates was annoyed because he believed that Ms. O'Reilly had made him a promise to give him exclusively the right to face paint and the right to sell name plates to the exclusion of the other stand holders. During the course of the Horse Show a fax arrived for Mr. Yates from another exhibition centre to the commercial office. Ms. O'Reilly brought it down to his exhibition stand and she complains that when she gave to him the fax he referred to her in the presence of a number of other persons as "a bitch". Mr. Yates, for his part, denies ever using such a word in relation to Ms. O'Reilly at that time. On the Saturday of the Horse Show, Mr. Yates says that when he arrived at his stand he found that it was covered in oil. The culprits who had spread the oil all over the stand were never found despite the fact that the Gardai attended the stand for the purposes of investigating the matter. Mr. Yates, along with other exhibitors, were told by the commercial office that if they wished to store any items from their exhibition stands overnight they could do so in the commercial office. At this point in time the relationship between Mr. Yates and Ms. O'Reilly was less than cordial.

4. Mr. Yates was of the view that the security at the Society was less than good and that

5. Ms. O'Reilly had made to him a promise which she had not kept. Indeed not only did he believe that she had made to him a promise which she had not kept, he believed that she had lied to him in respect of it. Mr. Yates blamed both Mr. McAuliffe and Ms. O'Reilly for the fact that his stand had been vandalised and indeed that goods had been removed from his stand in 1989. He was now of the view that both Mr. McAuliffe and Ms. O'Reilly were incompetent. Mr. Yates discovered that Ms. O'Reilly's birthday was in December, 1991. He decided to send to her a rose and a card, which he did, accompanied by a poem. The poem was as follows:

6. You may be a pain

7. To this heart of mine

8. With your tactless tongue

9. And acidic smile

10. You may be a thorn

11. In this soul of mine

12. With your web of lies

13. And cold hard eyes

14. But you are surreal

15. That there is no doubt

16. That stamps you special

17. And different from the crowd

18. You send this abstract mind of mine

19. Into an uncontrollable spin

20. So I picked this rose here

21. To let you know

22. You are worth a thought or two

23. And have a happy

24. And a peaceful day

25. From you know who.

26. Mr. Yates soon discovered that Ms. O'Reilly had taken serious offence at the receipt of a red rose and the above recited poem from Mr. Yates. He spoke to her on the telephone on the 20th December, 1991 but in the course of the phone conversation she began crying and hung up. When he rang again Mr. McAuliffe answered and according to

27. Mr. Yates accused him of being "an English bastard" and also of being "seedy" and a "creep".

28. Mr. McAuliffe denied using such phrases. By February 1992, Mr. Yates discovered that he was not going to be permitted by the commercial office of the Society to take part in any further exhibitions as an exhibitor. Mr. Yates had become a member of the Royal Dublin Society in July of 1991 and he continued to visit the Society's premises in Ballsbridge for the purposes of exercising his rights as a member. In 1992 he visited a number of exhibitions at the Society's premises: the Brighter Homes Exhibition, the Horse Show, the Ideal Homes Exhibition, the Enquip Show. In addition he was actually an exhibitor at the Christmas Fair of 1992 which was a Fair organised by personnel other than the commercial office of the Royal Dublin Society. During the course of that fair, Mr. Yates again had certain goods stolen from his stand. While waiting for Gardai to arrive to deal with his complaint of theft from his stand, he was discovered to have fallen asleep in a van outside Ms. O'Reilly's office. He was discovered by R.D.S. personnel who, because they were not sure whether he was asleep or whether he was ill, summoned both the Gardai and an ambulance to deal with him. Mr. Yates complains that for the Ideal Homes Exhibition of 1992 and the Enquip Show of the same year, Mr. McAuliffe was observing him while he was at each of those shows. Again at the Brighter Homes Exhibition and the Summer Festival of 1993 Mr. Yates complained that when he was at those shows he was followed around by Gerard McAuliffe and, indeed, that at the brighter Homes Exhibition Gerard McAuliffe assaulted him by pushing him in the chest with a walkie talkie. At the Horse Show of 1993, Mr. Yates was again present in exercise of his rights as a member of the Society. He says that a man who appeared to be one of the judges at the show approached him and asked him that if he wished to resolve his differences with Olivia O'Reilly he should meet at a public house which he named in Sandymount that very night. Mr. Yates returned home that evening and discussed the question of whether or not he should go to the public house, with members of his family. Despite their express view that he should not go, he decided he would. When he arrived at the public house there was no sign of Olivia O'Reilly or anyone else whom he recognised. He walked out of the public house and passed two youths who were suspicious looking. He decided he would run in the direction of the bus which he proposed to take only to discover that he was being followed by these youths. He took a turning and ended up on Sandymount Beach where he was set upon by the two youths. The result was that he was slashed on both sides of his face and in his stomach and on his leg. One of the youths said "This is your first warning if you don't stop pursuing Ms. O'Reilly that would be it" . Mr. Yates said that, as far as he could say, the well dressed person who had approached him in the Horse Show on that day, whom he had described as a judge (because he had a badge in his lapel,) was Charles O'Reilly, a brother of Olivia O'Reilly. In 1994 Mr. Yates attended another show at the R.D.S., namely The National Livestock Show. While he was there he was observed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, Shane Cleary, sitting on a bench underneath the window of Ms. O'Reilly's office and pointing a camera up towards the window on several occasions. When Mr. Yates noticed that Mr. Cleary was observing him he, Mr. Yates, gave Mr. Cleary a two finger sign as Mr. Cleary walked by. Mr. Yates also attended the 1994 Horse Show. On the Tuesday, he was followed around, according to himself, by Mr. Conor Dunne, an employee of the R.D.S. and on the Wednesday, he was followed around by Mr. Farrell of the R.D.S. who also took photographs of him. On the Thursday, Mr Yates again complained of being followed around. He was wearing a T-shirt which bore the following words on the back of it: "A good ride at the R.D.S. will make your hair stand on end". As Mr. Yates neared the President's box Mr. Cleary gave instructions that he was to be escorted out of the R.D.S. grounds. He was escorted out by two security staff a Mr. McKeon and a Mr. Rooney. According to Mr. Cleary and Mr. Howard Farrell there was no rough treatment of Mr. Yates. However, according to Mr. Yates, he was kicked and pushed and knocked to the ground.

29. Mr. Yates made a complaint to the Gardai about what he believed to have been an assault upon himself. Mr. Cleary in turn made a statement to the Gardai about what had occurred.

30. Mr. Yates, Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe were all keen racegoers.

31. Ms. O'Reilly complains that when she was at a race meeting at Leopardstown in 1992 she was followed around throughout the meeting by Mr. Yates. Mr. Yates for his part says that at that same meeting Mr. Gerard McAuliffe hung around him in a very intimidatory fashion. Mr. Yates complains that at a meeting in Naas in 1993 Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe spent a substantial amount time staring at Mr. Yates. Ms. O'Reilly complained that at a meeting in Punchestown she was in the stand talking to a friend when Mr. Yates came up beside her and stood next to her for a considerable period of time. Mr. Yates for his part suggests that he was pushed up against the wall of the stand by Mr. McAuliffe and his associates at that same meeting. In Fairyhouse in 1995, Ms. O'Reilly complained that she retired to the members' room for three of the races and that when she came out of the room she was followed around by Mr. Yates. She says she had retreated into the members' bar because of her awareness of Mr. Yates's presence outside. Finally at Naas in 1996 Mr. Yates alleges that he was pushed down the stairs by friends of Mr. McAuliffe towards the toilets. Ms. O'Reilly complains that she found Mr. Yates' presence at these race meetings threatening and intimidatory.

32. Mr. Yates, for his part, also complains that he was intimidated by the pushing and staring that occurred at several of these meetings.

33. Between 1990 and 1997 a huge volume of correspondence passed between

34. Mr. Yates, on the one hand, and Olivia O'Reilly, her parents and her solicitors, on the other hand. Neither Ms. O'Reilly or her parents ever replied to any of the letters which they had received from Mr. Yates. Ms. O'Reilly complains that much of the correspondence was extremely intimidating and that upon seeing it she was variously left feeling offended, terrified and afraid. I do not propose setting out in detail the entire of each of those letters but I do propose to set out some portions of some of those letters which Ms. O'Reilly said in her evidence caused her to be offended, afraid or terrified.

35. Olivia O'Reilly, herself instituted Circuit Court proceedings against Mr. Yates and, on the 22nd June, 1992 she obtained an Order from his honour Judge O'Connor restraining Mr. Yates from communicating with her other than through her solicitors Messrs. Heavey and Associates. On the 13th July 1992, Mr. Yates gave an undertaking in terms of the Order that had been granted on an interim basis. On the 8th June 1994, a High Court Summons was issued in which the Royal Dublin Society was the Plaintiff and Mr. Yates was the Defendant. That Summons was the commencement of these proceedings. On the

36. In late 1993 Mr. Yates advertised a forthcoming art exhibition which he proposed to hold at the Mansion House from the 4th to 7th May, 1994. The title of the exhibition was " Through Olivia's Eyes" . The exhibition was described by Mr. Yates as "a critical look at the contrasting worlds of the starving African people and those of the frivolous society" . When questioned as to why he chose the title "Through Olivia's Eyes" Mr. Yates said in his evidence "I wanted something dishonest and she came out as the most dishonest person I had met in my life". The brochure advertising the exhibition "Through Olivia's Eyes" together with photographs of certain of the paintings to be included in the exhibition were circulated widely and were circulated in particular to Professor Dervla Donnelly, Michael Jacob, the Management Committee of the R.D.S. and to Olivia O'Reilly's sister, Jane O'Reilly. After

37. Mr. Michael Heavey, Olivia O'Reilly's solicitor, protested at the title it was agreed by Mr. Yates that he would change the title from "Through Olivia's Eyes" to "Through Others' Eyes" Ms. O'Reilly was very upset at the photographs of the paintings which she saw. In every one of the paintings there was a depiction of an eye. She regarded this as a painting of her own eye. Mr. Yates, on the other hand protested that this was a common phenomenon and for example one used by Salvador Dali in a lot of his paintings. His daughter, Catherine, indicated that in her art work she used an eye quite regularly in her paintings. One of the paintings has included on its face a poem entitled "A Society Rose" and it reads as follows:

38. One of the paintings entitled "Unfinished/Untitled November 1993" shows the face of a woman whom Ms. O'Reilly identifies as being that of herself.

39. I have already adverted to the incident which occurred on Sandymount Strand and how it arose. It bears repeating here. Mr. Yates gave evidence that on the Tuesday of the 1993 Horse Show he was sitting outside a marquee talking to a lady friend of his when a well dressed person approached him and asked him if he was James Yates. He had a badge on his lapel indicating to Mr. Yates that he was steward or a Judge. According to Mr. Yates, the man indicated that Ms. O'Reilly wanted matters resolved. The man suggested a meeting at a public house in Sandymount. Mr. Yates went home and later got a bus into town having discussed the matter with his family. He went into the public house, but there was no one there whom he recognised. He telephoned home indicating that he was coming home. As he was going out the door he noticed two fellows. He ran past them around the corner for the bus. As he ran along the road towards the beach he got to the wall on the road. He turned left towards Irishtown. He then felt himself being kicked in the back and saw knives flashing. He heard one of the fellows say "This is your first warning. If you don't stop pursuing Ms. O'Reilly that would be it". Mr. Yates said that his shoulder, chest and face was cut and that he had had sixteen stitches inserted in his facial cuts at St. Vincent's Hospital. He made a statement to the Gardai. In Court, he said he had identified the well dressed man who had approached him in the Horse Show on that Tuesday as Charles O'Reilly, a brother of Olivia O'Reilly. Both Niamh Yates and Catherine Yates corroborated the fact that their father sustained injuries following his visit to the pub in Sandymount on the Tuesday night of the Horse Show week 1993. Detective Superintendent Martin Donnellan, who had been a Detective Inspector at Donnybrook during the period 1991 to 1995, indicated that the complaint made by Mr. Yates of being assaulted on Sandymount Strand was the subject matter of a police investigation and that the police could not discover any person from the Society to be involved in the assault.

40. Mr. Yates arrived at the Royal Dublin Society on the 6th January, 1995. He went to the area where the commercial offices of the Society are situated and where

41. Ms. O'Reilly works. Conor Dunne saw him and went out to speak to him. He observed that Mr. Yates was quite near Ms. O'Reilly's desk. Mr. Yates indicated that he had papers to leave with the Society and Mr. Dunne took the papers from Mr. Yates who then left. While

42. Mr. Yates left peaceably his arrival nonetheless caused some disturbance in the commercial offices of the Society and Mr. Shane Cleary gave evidence to the effect that when Olivia O'Reilly saw Mr. Yates approach the commercial office she fled into his (Mr. Cleary's office) along with one of her staff, a Ms. Tyndall. Again on the 25th January 1995, Mr. Yates arrived at the area where the commercial offices is situated. Mr. Conor Dunne saw him and spoke to him. Mr. Yates alleges that he was told that if he did not leave he would be "put over the rails". Mr. Conor Dunne denies strenuously that this was ever said by him to Mr. Yates or by anyone else on behalf of the Royal Dublin Society to Mr. Yates. Mr. Dunne concedes that Mr. Yates was, however, told that if he did not leave he would be ejected from the Society's premises. Mr. Dunne recalls having a fifteen minute conversation with Mr. Yates on that occasion and that eventually he left having handed to Mr. Farrell a letter. Olivia O'Reilly was at her home in Sandymount on the night of the 25th January, 1995: at approximately 9.00 p.m. the door bell rang and she opened the door. Mr. Yates was at the door. According to her he tried to push the door in with his hands. She managed to close the door. She then rang the Gardai who when they arrived discovered a note in the door.

43. Mr. Yates in his evidence indicated that the note was in fact a supoena which he had been attempting to serve on Ms. O'Reilly.

44. Apart from the foregoing, there were only two other occasions on which

45. Ms. O'Reilly believed that she was being followed or observed by Mr. Yates. One was in November 1993 when she believed that he had been following her across the road from the R.D.S. into the Horse Show house and because of her anxiety in this regard she asked

46. Mr. Kevin Bright to accompany her back to the R.D.S. premises. The other occasion was in early 1997 when she was out walking with her dog near her parents home in Rathmore,

47. Co. Kildare when she observed Mr. Yates driving by in his car.

48. At a meeting of the Council of the Society held on the 12th May, 1994 it was resolved to convene a special meeting of the Council on the 23rd June, 1994 to move a resolution recommending that Mr. Yates be called on to resign from his membership of the Society. The agenda for that meeting was as follows:

49. In addition to this letter Mr. Yates sent two of the members of the Council a twenty four page statement. On the 17th June, 1994 a background statement prepared by

50. Mr. Bright was sent to Mr. Yates. Minutes of the Meeting of the 23rd June, 1994 record that sixteen of the seventeen members present voted in favour of the Resolution and there was one absention. No person voted against the Resolution. A stated general meeting of the Royal Dublin Society was fixed for the members hall, Ballsbridge on the 1st December, 1994 at 6.00 p.m. The agenda for that meeting included at Item 1 the following:

51. Mr. Yates, as a member, in due course received the agenda for the meeting of the 1st December, 1994 and, by letter dated 24th November, 1994 the Society's solicitors wrote to Mr. Yates indicating to him the procedure that would be followed at the meeting. A supplementary background statement which had been prepared by Mr. Bright was sent by courier to Mr. Yates on 29th November, 1994. It was sent under cover of a letter from Messrs. Eugene Collins, the Society's solicitor in which they indicated: "No decision has yet been made as to whether or not it will be read out in full".

52. In their earlier letter of the 24th November, 1994 the Society's Solicitors in explaining the procedure to be followed at the stated general meetings said as follows:

53. Mr. Yates recalls that he arrived some quarter of an hour early for the stated general meeting with his two daughters, Niamh and Catherine. When he went into the meeting he had photocopied his 'statement to members' which he proposed distributing to the members present at the meeting. While on his way into the meeting with his two daughters he said that Conor Dunne was sitting at a table and put out his arm to stop his two daughters.

54. Mr. Yates explained to Mr. Dunne that the two girls were his daughters and that he had indicated already to Mr. Bright that his daughters would be accompanying him. Mr. Dunne then allowed them in. Mr. Yates realised that a paragraph of his statement to members which had already been given to the Society had been omitted and he complained of this to

55. Mr. Dunne. He got other statements back from Mr. Dunne and distributed the originals without the omitted paragraph to the members there present. When the meeting began

56. Mr. Tinney took the chair and Mr. Jacob proposed the first item on the agenda. He read the background statement. After he had read the background statement Mr. Yates was invited to speak by the chairman of the meeting. He spoke for about twenty minutes. At the end of which Mr. Tinney intervened and asked Mr. Yates to desist from making defamatory remarks. At that point in time Mr Yates had been reading from an affidavit which he had sworn in High Court proceedings. While the President had asked Mr Yates to desist from making defamatory remarks he did indicate that he did not wish to stop Mr. Yates defence entirely. At this point in time Mr. Yates gave evidence that the microphone seemed to stop working and he could not be heard and after some moments he indicated to the meeting the following words. "See you in Court" and left the room with his two daughters. After

57. Mr. Yates had left the meeting with his two daughters Mr. Jacob proceeded to read out the supplementary background statement which had been prepared by Mr. Bright. That supplementary background statement detailed what the Society considered were further acts of intimidation and harassment of staff members of the Society by Mr. Yates and the other relevant events which had occurred since the original background statement had been prepared for the Council for consideration at its meeting on the 23rd June, 1994. After the supplementary background statement had been read by Mr. Jacob a vote was taken on the proposal and all those then present voted in favour of the proposal with no one person voting against the proposal. The proposal was accordingly carried and on the 6th December, 1994 Mr. Bright wrote to Mr. Yates informing him that the stated general meeting of the Society held on the 1st December had voted in favour of the recommendation calling on him to resign his membership of the Society. Mr. Bright in the letter formally called upon Mr. Yates to resign his membership of the Society forthwith and to return his members badge and car park sticker. He reminded him that should he fail to resign his membership by the 15th December, 1994 that he would have to advise him that his name would be struck from the list of members and he would no longer be entitled to exercise any of the privileges of membership. This is in fact what occurred. It is worth while recording that Mr. Yates and his two daughters Niamh and Catherine gave evidence that during the course of the meeting and in particular whilst Mr. Yates himself was responding to the background statement that had been put before the meeting by Mr. Jacob the light at lectern from which he was speaking flickered on and off and the volume of the microphone which he was using equally went up and down. It is also worth recording again Mr. Yates' complaint that at the time when the President was remonstrating with him not to use defamatory words, the microphone cut out. Ms. Eileen Byrne, who was in charge of the arrangements for stated general meetings, does not recall any lights flickering or indeed the microphone faltering on the night of the 1st December, 1994. She said she had two microphones available for use and in the event of one of them having had a fault the other could have been used but that this did not arise on that particular night. It is also worth recalling the evidence of Mr. Jacob, Mr. McAuliffe, Mr. Cleary and Professor Donnelly all of whom were at the stated general meeting of 1st December and none of whom recall any default in the microphone and none of them noticed any flickering of the light at the lectern save Mr. Cleary who allowed that it might have occurred. The procedure followed by Mr. Bright, as registrar to the Council, was according to him the procedure outlined in bye-law 14 sub-rules 5 and 6 of the Bye-Laws of the Royal Dublin Society. Mr. Bright also expressed the view that Rule 46(2) of the Bye-Laws was such as to permit the Council meeting of the 12th May, 1994 to resolve to convene a special meeting of the Council on the 23rd June, 1994 to move a resolution recommending that

58. Mr. Yates be called upon to resign from his membership of the Society. Mr. Bright expressed the view that the passing of such a Resolution at the meeting on the 12th May, 1994 constituted "working business of the Society".

59. In October, 1993 Ms. O'Reilly received through the post from Mr. Yates a red ink impression of his right hand without any accompanying letter other than a statement that it was to Olivia O'Reilly from Jim Yates. Mr. Yates and indeed his daughter Catherine complained that various phone calls were made by unknown persons to his house at Old Bawn at various times during the night. In particular Mr. Yates recounted a telephone call he had received in the early hours of New Year's day of 1994 which he says was a phone call from Gerard McAuliffe whose voice he identified at the end of the phone - he alleges that in that phone conversation Mr. McAuliffe threatened his life and that he Mr. Yates could hear Olivia O'Reilly in the background encouraging Mr. McAuliffe to say what he was saying to Mr. Yates.

60. I am satisfied that at the Spring Show in 1989 a number of exhibitors had goods stolen including Mr. Yates. This was seen by the management of the R.D.S. as representing a security problem, the solution to which was in fact the removal of the security staff who were then responsible for the safety of the goods on the stands of exhibitors. At the Spring Show and the Horse Show in 1991, Mr. Yates' stand was defaced. I do not believe that any officer or employee of the Society was responsible for the defacing of Mr. Yates' stand at either of these shows. It is clear from the correspondence in this case that by 1991 Mr. Yates was clearly concerned about two particular problems. The first was the problem of security and the second was his belief that he had been promised by Miss O'Reilly that he would have exclusivity in the shows in the area of face painting and name plates. While he believed he has received such a promise from Miss O'Reilly, he was annoyed that she had not delivered on foot of that promise. It was then that he began writing to Miss O'Reilly at the R.D.S.. Having written a number of letters to her which were critical of the work she was doing as a sales executive in the R.D.S., he decided on learning that her birthday was on the 14th December of that year to send to her a rose together with a card with a poem and on the 14th December, 1991, as I have already described, he sent to her a red rose together with a card and a poem to her home in Sandymount. I am satisfied that Miss O'Reilly was genuinely upset at the receipt of the rose and the poem that accompanied it. I am equally satisfied that Mr. Yates was aware that Miss O'Reilly was upset as early as the 20th December, 1991 when he spoke to her on the telephone. On that occasion she was so upset that she was crying on the telephone and indeed did not continue the telephone conversation with Mr. Yates but replaced the phone. Despite being aware that Miss O'Reilly was upset at receiving the rose, Mr. Yates wrote to her on the 6th January, 1992 and with his letter was another poem entitled "An Ode to a Lady who took exception to a Rose". I have little doubt that this letter and the poem accompanying it further compounded the upset and distress of Miss O'Reilly at that point in time. It is clear that Miss O'Reilly's distress was such that she eventually decided that she should consult a Solicitor which she did and Michael Heavey, on her behalf, procured the institution of Proceedings in June 1992. On the 22nd June, 1992, as I have already outlined, an Order was made restraining Mr. Yates from communicating with

61. Miss O'Reilly other than through her Solicitors, Messrs. Heavey & Associates. That was an Interim Order made by His Honour Judge O'Connor in the Circuit Court and on the 13th July, 1992, Mr. Yates gave an undertaking to the Circuit Court in terms of the Interim Order which had been made on the 22nd June. It is clear that Miss O'Reilly's superiors at the Society were aware of the dispute between Mr. Yates and herself and the distress caused to Miss O'Reilly by the sending of the rose and the accompanying and following poems. Following the undertaking given by Mr. Yates to the Circuit Court on the 13th July, 1992, I am satisfied that on each occasion thereafter when he visited the grounds of the Royal Dublin Society in 1992, 1993 and 1994 (save for the Christmas Fair in 1992), he was observed, if not followed, on each occasion. I am also satisfied that he was photographed at the R.D.S. on at least two occasions. He was ejected from the Society's premises during Horse Show week in 1994 and I am satisfied that in ejecting Mr. Yates from the premises, no more force was used than was reasonably necessary by the security staff of the R.D.S. who effected his removal from the premises. I am satisfied that observing and following Mr. Yates and indeed photographing Mr. Yates were actions which were no more than appropriate having regard to firstly, the Circuit Court Order and undertaking which was in existence at the time and secondly, the nature of the correspondence, to which I shall refer in a moment, which was passing between Mr. Yates and Miss O'Reilly, her Solicitors, the Society and Miss O'Reilly's parents and sister.

62. The evidence established that both Miss O'Reilly and Mr. Yates were keen race goers. Between 1992 and 1996 they came across each other at five different race meetings. Mr. Yates alleges that he was intimidated by Mr. McAuliffe at three of those meetings and Miss O'Reilly herself complains of being intimidated by Mr. Yates at two of those meetings. I am satisfied that each of them probably felt intimidated by the presence of the other at those race meetings. However, I do not believe that Mr. Yates intended to

63. It is clear that the Horse Show of 1991 represented a water-shed in the relationship between Mr. Yates on the one hand and Miss O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe on the other hand. As I have already indicated by that stage Mr. Yates was preoccupied by what he perceived as problems firstly, of security and secondly, of exclusivity. He blamed the commercial office for a lack of security at the R.D.S. premises and he also blamed them for having promised him exclusivity in respect of face painting and name plates and for not delivering on foot of that promise. He directed all his fire at Mr. McAuliffe and Miss O'Reilly as is evident from the correspondence which passed between him and Miss O'Reilly and the Society. Whilst security and exclusivity may have been the original problems which Mr. Yates had with the commercial office, the correspondence which emanated from him contained far more serious allegations. In summary, he variously alleged firstly, that Mr. McAuliffe and Miss O'Reilly were having an affair. Secondly, that Mr. McAuliffe, Miss O'Reilly and the Society were involved in condoning organised crime, thirdly, that Miss O'Reilly was guilty of incompetence, as was Mr. McAuliffe; fourthly, that Miss O'Reilly and Mr. McAuliffe were engaged in a conspiracy to kill him; and, fifthly, that both of them had been involved in the assault upon him at Sandymount Strand. While Mr. Yates was making these very serious allegations against both Mr. McAuliffe and Miss O'Reilly in that same correspondence he was nonetheless protesting his affection for Olivia O'Reilly while in prose and poem he was also suggesting that she was a cold, uncaring and mentally unwell lady. Examples of the scatter-gun approach of Mr. Yates is to be observed from the correspondence which I have already detailed, for example, in a letter to Miss O'Reilly's parents he indicated "your daughter is obviously very ill"; in another letter to Miss O'Reilly's father, he said "My only sin is I happened to fall for your daughter". In a letter to Mr. Bright, the Registrar of the Royal Dublin Society in June of 1994, he said "That bitch O'Reilly tried to have me killed with the help of her boyfriend McAuliffe". In a further letter of the 29th October, 1992 to Miss O'Reilly's parents, he said "I have to except (sic) that she is genuinely fearful of me".

64. I am absolutely satisfied that the letters addressed to Olivia O'Reilly, her parents and her Solicitors were extremely upsetting to her and that any reasonable person receiving and reading such correspondence would be most upset by it: the correspondence is personally offensive, threatening and unbalanced. I have no doubted that the correspondence made Olivia O'Reilly fear for her safety and that the R.D.S. management in the light of that correspondence were absolutely correct to take the precautionary steps that they did whenever Mr. Yates was seen in the R.D.S. grounds.

65. Mr. Yates conceded that he chose the title "Through Olivia's Eyes" for his exhibition of art because he wanted "something dishonest and she came out as the most dishonest person I had met in my life". The exhibition, to take place in May of 1994, was advertised widely and in particular to colleagues, friends and family of Olivia O'Reilly. While Mr. Yates ultimately agreed to change the title of the exhibition, he did so only after the exhibition had been advertised with its original title to the colleagues, friends and family of Miss O'Reilly. It is of course not the function of this Court to comment on the quality of Mr. Yates' artwork, however, it is clear that much of the work was publicly offensive and upsetting to Olivia O'Reilly. Miss O'Reilly was upset at the presence of the eye in each of the paintings and she was also upset with the painting which was entitled "A Society Rose" and which contained a poem on the painting which clearly referred to her. She was also upset by one of the paintings entitled "No. 13 Unfinished/Untitled, November 1993" in which she said her face appeared. I am satisfied that the depiction of Miss O'Reilly in the paintings of Mr. Yates was an attempt on his part to offend and humiliate her and to draw himself again to her attention at a time when he realised that she did not wish to have anything to do with him.

66. I am quite satisfied that Mr. Yates was beaten up on Sandymount Strand in August of 1993 and that he sustained the injuries that he described in Court. Both his daughters corroborate his description of the injuries he sustained. I am not, however, satisfied that there was any connection between the assault on him at Sandymount Strand and any officer of the Royal Dublin Society. That the Garda investigation into the incident could not uncover any such link fortifies me in my view in this regard. Equally, I am not satisfied that there is any satisfactory evidence which links the anonymous phone calls which the Yates family received and any officer of the Royal Dublin Society.

67. On the 6th and 25th January, 1995, Mr. Yates attempted to serve subpoenas on various members and officers of the Royal Dublin Society both at work and at their homes. It is evident that by this stage tension between the Society and its staff and Mr. Yates was high. Whilst that is so, I am satisfied that Mr. Yates did not intend at this point in time to intimidate Miss O'Reilly either on the 6th or 25th January, 1995, when he visited the Royal Dublin Society (after giving Notice to Mr. Bright) or on the 25th January, 1995 when he attempted to serve a subpoena on her at her home in Sandymount. I am equally satisfied that no member of the R.D.S. staff intended to intimidate Mr. Yates, or did intimidate Mr. Yates, on either of the occasion when he visited the R.D.S. in January 1995 for the purposes of serving subpoenas.

68. Finally, I do not accept that at the stated general meeting of the 1st December, 1994, any attempt was made by officers or members of the Royal Dublin Society to intimidate Mr. Yates or that anyone consciously interfered with the lighting or sound being used on that night for the purposes of the meeting.

69. The causes of action pleaded by the Society against Mr. Yates are those of trespassed land, intimidation and nuisance. Before considering Mr. Yates' liability to the Society, it is worth firstly, identifying the ingredients of each of these torts and secondly, identifying whether Mr. Yates is liable to the Society in respect of such civil wrongs.

70. Trespass to land consists in any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another. The intrusion may be intentional or it may be negligent: in either case, it is actionable in the absence of lawful justification.

71. Although there seems to be no authority on the point, it cannot be doubted that it is an actionable wrong intentionally to compel a person by means of a threat of an illegal act to do some act whereby loss accrues to him: for example, an action will doubtless lie at the suit of a trader who has been compelled to discontinue his business by means of threats of personal violence made against him by the defendant with the intention.

72. In certain cases it is an actionable wrong to intimidate other persons with the intent and effect of compelling them to act in a manner or to do acts which they themselves have a legal right to do which cause a loss to the plaintiff: for example, the intimidation of the plaintiff's customers whereby they are compelled to withdraw their custom from him or the intimidation of an employer whereby he is compelled to discharge his servant, the plaintiff. Intimidation of this sort is actionable as we have said in certain classes of cases; for it does not follow that because a plaintiff's customers have a right to cease to deal with him if they please other persons have a right as against the plaintiff to compel his customers to do so. There are at least two cases in which such intimidation may constitute a cause of action;-

73. Private nuisance consists of any interference without lawful justification with a person's use and enjoyment of his property.

74. Apart from ordinary members, the Society admits members of the public to most of its exhibitions and shows on payment of a stipulated fee. Where a member of the Society attends the Society's grounds for an exhibition or otherwise, or where a member of the public pays a fee to attend a show, they are not, of course, trespassers: a trespasser being one who goes on land without an invitation of any kind and "whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or, if known, is practically objected to:" per Lord Dunedin in Addie and Sons -v- Dumbreck, 1929 AC 358 at page 371. It follows therefore that for so long as Mr. Yates was a member of the Society (and the Council of the Society did not otherwise determine, see Bylaws 6(1)(h) of the Bylaws), he was not a trespasser when attending the Society's premises in the manner envisaged in Bylaw 6.

75. He went on to refer to the fact that the leading case or the need for exclusive possession to found an action in nuisance is the case of Malone -v- Laskey , 1907, 2 K.B. 141. Mrs. Malone in that case lived in a house belonging to her husband's employer; he (her husband) was a service occupier. She was injured by the falling of a bracket supporting a water-tank which had been dislodged by vibration caused by an engine worked by the defendants on the adjoining premises. She sued in negligence and nuisance and lost on both counts. On the nuisance issue, however, her claim was rejected because she had no interest in the property. She was the licensee of her husband or his employer. In other words she was a mere occupier of the premises and had no entitlement to possession of the premises.

76. In the Irish case of Mary Hanrahan & Others -v- Merck Sharp and Dohme (Ireland) Limited , 1988 ILRM 629, a different and more flexible approach appears to have been taken on the issue of who has the right to sue. In that case, Mr. Justice Henchy, delivering the judgment of the Court said at page 634:-

77. In that case the plaintiff Mary Hanrahan was the registered owner of the farm of about 264 acres at Ballycurkeen, Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary. The second and third named plaintiff was husband and wife. John Hanrahan, the second named Plaintiff, was the son of the registered owned of the farm but neither he nor his wife had any right to the exclusive possession of the farm.

78. The Court of Appeal in England recently considered the question of the entitlement of an occupier of premises to sue in respect of the tort of nuisance. In the case of KhorasandJian -v- Bush , 1993, 3 All E.R. 669, the plaintiff was a young woman aged 18 living with her mother, the defendant was a former friend who pestered her with telephone calls. In the ordinary sense of the word as the Court noted he was "making a nuisance of himself"; the problem was to find a cause of action which could justify the grant of an injunction to stop him. A majority of the Court of Appeal ( Peter Gibson LJ dissenting) held that she was entitled to sue in respect of nuisance. Dillon, Lord Justice, brushed Malone's case aside. He said at page 675:-

79. Lord Hoffman, in Hunter -v- Canary Wharf Limited (supra), was of the view that Lord Justice Dillon was mistaken in his statement of his reasons for allowing an action for nuisance to be brought at the suit of the daughter who had no interest in the premises in question. He said as follows:-

80. In the present case, the Royal Dublin Society is not just the occupier of the lands at Ballsbridge in the City of Dublin but also the owner of those lands and entitled to the exclusive possession of them. Accordingly, in asking the question as to whether the Society is entitled to sue in respect of any private nuisance committed by Mr. Yates, it is unnecessary to consider the difference of approach which appears to have emerged between the Irish Supreme Court as exemplified by the judgment of Mr. Justice Henchy in Hanrahan -v- Merck Sharp and Dohme , supra, and in the House of Lords in the speeches of a majority of their Lordships in the case of Hunter and Canary Wharf Limited, supra. It is, however, worthwhile referring to a statement of principle that Mr. Justice Henchy quoted with approval in the case of Hanrahan -v- Merck Sharp and Dohme Supra, at page 634: he was referring to a decision (unreported) of Gannon J. in the case of Halpin and Others -v- Tara Mines Limited , High Court 1973 No. 1516p the 16th February 1976 in which Mr. Justice Gannon stated as follows:-

81. The test propounded by Mr. Justice Gannon in Halpin and Others -v- Tara Mines Limited , 16th February 1976 seems to me the appropriate test to be applied to the position as between the Society and Mr. Yates. I have recited in detail the occasions when Mr. Yates was on the Society's premises and when there were verbal altercations (at the least) between him and officers and members of the Society: in particular, I should refer to the Horse Show of 1994 and to the 6th and 25th January 1995. While these events occurred after the issue of the Plenary Summons in this case, they do, nonetheless, represent the height of a deteriorating relationship between Mr. Yates and the Society which relationship in fact persuaded the Society that it was necessary to ensure that Mr. Yates was observed in the Society premises from 1992 onwards. The Society's evidence was clear and unambiguous: for the protection of their staff, especially Ms. O'Reilly, they felt the need from 1992 onwards to keep Mr. Yates under observation when he was on the premises of the Society lest he should further intimidate her or any other member of their staff: I am satisfied that this state of affairs has constituted, on the test propounded by Mr. Justice Gannon, a private nuisance to the Society and has required the Society to deploy staff to observe Mr. Yates whenever he has been on the premises of the Society. While the Society has not sought to lead evidence as to the quantum of damage caused by the nuisance, I am satisfied nonetheless that damage was caused. Mr. Yates' presence on the premises of the Society cannot be considered in isolation. That presence must be considered in the context of the acrimonious and offensive correspondence he was having with Ms. O'Reilly together with the threatening correspondence he was having with other parties. I believe that the presence of Mr. Yates upon the premises of the Society at these various events did indeed constitute an interference with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment by the Society of its property. That interference amounted to nuisance.

82. The Defendant claims damages for libel and slander, intimidation, harassment, negligence and also claims that the decision of the stated general meeting of the 1st December, 1994 is void and ought to be set aside. Hereunder I will look at each of these claims separately.

83. The Defendant contends that he was libelled and slandered on a significant number of occasions by members and officers of the Plaintiff Society. Firstly, he complains that he was slandered when the document entitled "Background Statement prepared for the information of the Council" was read to the members at its stated general meeting on 1st December, 1994. He further says that he was slandered at various meetings of the Society's Council and Management Committee. He contends that he was slandered when the Society called on its staff to follow him at the Society's premises; he suggests that not only were the staff called upon to follow him at the Society's premises but also to harass and intimidate him while he was upon the Society's premises. He contends that the passing by the Council of the Society of a resolution calling upon him to resign was in itself libellous and slanderous. He says that the allegation that he tried to force an illegal entry into the home of Olivia O'Reilly in Sandymount was a slander upon him and that he was also slandered and libelled when it was alleged both verbally and in writing that he had been interviewed by the Gardai on dates since 1991. Mr. Yates claims that no only were all these matters which I have set out above capable of being defamatory, they were in fact defamatory of him. In the absence of a jury it falls to me to decide firstly, whether any of the words spoken or written were capable of being defamatory and secondly, if they were capable of being defamatory whether they were in fact defamatory of Mr. Yates. In relation to the background statement prepared for the information of the Council, there is only one matter which causes me concern and that is the reference in that statement to Mr. Yates declining to assist the Gardai in the search for fingerprint evidence. I am not satisfied that Mr. Yates did in fact decline to assist the Gardai in the search for fingerprint evidence. The evidence establishes that he left his stand at the Horse Show in 1991 when Detective Sergeant Kilroe, in the company of Mr. Gerard McAuliffe, suggested to him that he, the Sergeant, wished to have the ink can available for the purposes of fingerprinting; in all the circumstances however, I do not believe that these words were in fact defamatory of Mr. Yates. As to the allegation that Mr. Yates tried to force an illegal entry into the home of Miss O'Reilly in January of 1995 and the allegation that he had been interviewed by Gardai since 1991, I do not believe that those words, having regard to the evidence of Miss O'Reilly and the Garda witnesses, could be regarded as being capable of being defamatory. Finally, Mr. Yates complains that insofar as the question of his conduct arose at various meetings of the Council and the Management Committee, he was slandered by members of the Council and the Management Committee. He further complains that insofar as the Council passed a meeting calling on him to resign, they slandered him in doing so, and further, insofar as there was publication of the agenda for the stated general meeting on the 1st December, 1994, Mr. Yates contends that he was libelled. As to these latter allegations, namely, the discussions at meetings of the Council and the Management Committee and the content of the resolution which called on Mr. Yates to resign, I am not satisfied that any of the words used which appear in the minutes of such meetings or in the agenda for any of those meetings could be regarded as being defamatory of Mr. Yates.

84. Mr. Yates alleges that he was followed around the Horse Show in 1994 by employees of the Society who took photographs of him. He alleges that the same occurred during the Livestock Show of 1994 when again he was followed and photographs of him were taken. As already indicated, he also contends that at various race meetings and at other shows and indeed at the Horse Show Bar opposite the Royal Dublin Society's premises, he was intimidated and harassed by officers of the Society and their friends. It is common case that from 1992 onwards officers of the Society did indeed follow Mr. Yates when he was present on the premises of the Society in Ballsbridge. It is also common case that during the Horse Show of 1994 one of the employees of the Society was instructed to take photographs of Mr. Yates. 1992 was in a sense a watershed in the relationship between Mr. Yates and the Society. By the end of 1991, Mr. Yates had made his views known in no uncertain terms as to the lack of security at the premises of the Society and the persons whom he deemed responsible for this absence of security. Equally, he had let his views be known as to the competence with which he regarded Miss O'Reilly. He had also indicated that she had made certain promises to him but she had not adhered to those promises. By the end of 1991 of course the incident of the rose and the poem had occurred and by the 20th December, 1991, Mr. Yates was aware of the significant offence that this whole incident had caused to Miss O'Reilly as was Mr. McAuliffe so aware. It was also clear by the end of 1991 that a significant amount of intimidatory correspondence was emanating from Mr. Yates to Miss O'Reilly at the premises of the Royal Dublin Society. Against that background, it seems clear to me that the Royal Dublin Society owed a duty of care to its staff to ensure their safety. I am quite satisfied that the steps they took during 1992 of assuring that Mr. Yates was observed whilst he was on the Society's premises were steps which were no more than necessary for the purposes of discharging the duty of care owed by the Society to the members of its own staff. I am also satisfied that the actions which the Society say they took against Mr. Yates at the Horse Show in 1994 and on his two visits to the premises in January of 1995 were no more than consistent with the discharge of that duty of care owed by it to its employees. I have already quoted extensively from Rookes -v- Barnard as to the elements of the tort of intimidation. McMahon and Binchy in their 1st Edition of the Irish Law of Torts at page 439, succincty define the tort as follows:-

85. I am quite satisfied that none of the actions complained of by Mr. Yates as against members or employees of the Society could colourably constitute the tort of intimidation as defined above or as set out in Rookes -v- Barnard .

86. Mr. Yates, in the course of this hearing, alleges that he was assaulted by security officers employed by the Society when he was removed from the premises during the Horse Show in 1994. I have already indicated that I did not believe that any more force than was reasonably necessary was used in the process of ejecting Mr. Yates from the premises on that occasion. Finally, I should note that had Mr. Yates established that he had been the victim of intimidation by the Society or indeed the victim of an assault by the Society, the very fact that the Society owed to its staff a duty of care to ensure their safety would not be a defence to such a claim of intimidation or assault by Mr. Yates.

87. Mr. Yates, in the course of this case, alleges that the Society were negligent in a number of regards. He instanced the failure of the Society to ensure that proper security staff were retained by the Society which failure resulted in thefts from certain of the stands of the Society including his own stand and which failure resulted in his stand being defaced on two separate occasions. I do not accept that the Society have been established to have been in breach of the duty of care they owed to Mr. Yates which was to provide reasonable security for his stand at all material times. In his Counterclaim, Mr. Yates contends that the Society violated the charters, bylaws and rules of the Society as to the conduct of the meetings of the Society. Their failure to conduct meetings of the Council of the Society on the 23rd June, 1994 and the stated meeting of the Society held on the 1st December, 1994 in accordance with the Bylaws of the Society, constituted, according to Mr. Yates, negligence on the part of the Society. I deal hereunder with the stated general meeting of the 1st December, 1994.

88. The stated general meeting was held on Thursday, 1st December, 1994. The first item on the agenda was a consideration and vote on the recommendation of the Council of the 23rd June, 1994 that Mr. James Yates be called upon to resign his membership of the Society. The procedures for the consideration of Item 1 on the agenda had already been outlined to Mr. Yates in correspondence which passed between him and the Solicitors for the Society, Messrs. Eugene F. Collins & Son. The procedures to be followed were in simple terms that the Society would first present its case and that Mr. Yates would be allowed an opportunity to respond to the case presented by the Society. The Society had given to Mr. Yates the background statement which it had prepared in relation to the dispute and also given to him the supplementary background statement which it had prepared. Mr. Michael Jacob, the Chairman of the Management Committee, proposed to the members at the stated general meeting that they adopt the recommendation of the Council calling upon Mr. Yates to resign his membership of the Royal Dublin Society. The resolution was seconded by the Vice President of the Society, Mr. Liam Connellan. Mr. Jacob in proposing the resolution, in substance, read out the background statement which had been prepared by Mr. Bright and which had already been seen by Mr. Yates. When he was finished reading out the background statement, the President of the Society, Mr. Sean Tinney, who was acting as Chairman of the meeting, asked whether Mr. Yates would like to respond to Mr. Jacob's proposal. Mr. Yates accepted the invitation and began his response by referring to certain procedural matters before beginning to open an affidavit he had sworn in the High Court in the course of which affidavit he had stated "I believe Gerard McAuliffe has a hold over her and is behind all her actions and he can manipulate her thoughts and actions at will": this was a reference to Olivia O'Reilly. Again, he went on to quote from his affidavit stating "I believe I am in imminent danger from him as his associates": this was a reference to Mr. Gerard McAuliffe. Earlier in the affidavit he had accused Olivia O'Reilly as suffering from "delusion and paranoia". After the Chairman had heard these references which came from Mr. Yates' affidavit, the transcript of the meeting (which was not as to the words used therein impugned by either side), discloses that the President, Mr. Tinney, said as follows:-

89. Mr. James Yates: See you in Court."

90. Mr. Yates then, accordingly to his own evidence, left the meeting accompanied by his two daughters. The President of the Society then invited members of the audience to make any contribution they wished to do so in relation to the matter. After a point was made by Mr. Neal Duggan, Mr. Michael Jacob indicated that he would fill in the members in relation to the up-to-date position, and thereafter he read the supplementary background statement, which covered the period of time from the 27th June, 1994 to the 1st December, 1994 which was the same supplementary background statement as had been furnished by Mr. Bright to Mr. Yates by courier two days earlier. After Mr. Jacob had read the supplementary background statement, a vote was taken and the resolution which proposed that Mr. James Yates be called upon to resign his membership of the Society was passed.

91. Bylaw 25(6) of the Society's bylaws provides as follows:-

92. Bylaw 84 of the same bylaws provides as follows:-

93. I am quite satisfied that Mr. Tinney, acting in his capacity as Chairman of the meeting, was entitled to caution Mr. Yates by asking him not to make defamatory remarks. Of far greater significance, however, is the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the meeting after Mr. Yates had left the meeting in the company of his two daughters. It was quite reasonable for Mr. Yates to believe (having regard to the correspondence he had had with Messrs. Eugene F. Collins & Son as to the procedures to be followed) that the Society's case against him had been put in its entirety in Mr. Jacob's proposing speech and that when he, Mr. Yates, responded, he was defending himself against all and every allegation of the Society against him. He could not know, and could not have expected, that after he had, as it were, delivered his defence further and other allegations such as those contained in the supplementary background statement would be opened by Mr. Jacob to the stated general meeting. Such a procedure was inconsistent with the procedures outlined by the Society's Solicitors to Mr. Yates and accordingly the procedures adopted were fundamentally flawed. While certain procedural improprieties occurring at meetings can be overlooked, this particular impropriety cannot as its effect was to unwittingly deprive Mr. Yates of an opportunity to answer fully the further allegations of fact in the supplementary background statement. It may well be that he would have chosen not to exercise the opportunity, or having done so, the members may well have remained of an unchanged mind; the fact is that he was entitled to defend himself against all allegations and he was denied this opportunity. There was accordingly a clear breach of natural justice. The fact that he left the meeting at the time when he did is not relevant to the occurrence of the breach of natural justice.

94. Mr. Yates left the meeting at a time when (as far as he understood the procedures that were to be followed) the entire of the Society's case against him had been put by Mr. Jacob and he, Mr. Yates, had responded as he saw proper to that case. Accordingly, the resolution passed by the members of the Society on the 1st December, 1994 must be set aside. While therefore Mr. Yates is still a member of the Society, in the light of my findings that he has been guilty of nuisance, I do not propose to permit him to enjoy the privileges of such membership. The acts of nuisance that have been committed by the Defendant up to the date of the institution of these proceedings, and thereafter, are of such kind and nature as to justify this Court making an Order restraining him, his servants or agents from attending at or entering upon the exhibition grounds and premises maintained by the Plaintiff Society at Ballsbridge in the County of the City of Dublin and further an Order restraining the Defendant, his servants or agents from communicating or attempting to communicate with the staff and or employees of the Plaintiff Society in any manner whatsoever.

95. While I have found that Mr. Yates has been guilty of private nuisance, I do not propose to award to the Society any damages in respect of that nuisance.