Recent Irish defamation cases clarify application of law

In the first (26-page / 280 KB PDF), the High Court awarded damages of €40,000 to Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Limited (‘Stillorgan’) after defamatory comments were made about the company online.

The decision highlights that in the context of online defamation, defamatory comments that are posted for even a relatively short period of time can cause reputational damage to a company and consequently can result in a moderate level of damages being awarded – even if those comments do not necessarily cause a reduction in sales.

Stillorgan had been engaged in early 2022 to carry out work to the heating system of a rental property in Ranelagh, which was owned by the sisters of James Manning.

Manning was not an owner of the property but assisted in managing it. Following a dispute between Stillorgan and Manning over the performance and price of the work, Manning posted several reviews about the company on www.trustpilot.com and on the company’s Google review page, which led to the company bringing an action for defamation against Morgan and another individual.

Manning failed to appear at a High Court hearing in October 2023, and the matter was back before the court in February for the assessment of damages.

The court used the framework for assessing damages identified by the Supreme Court in the 2022 Higgins v The Irish Aviation Authority case. General damages awards in defamation cases fall within four general categories, ranging from level one to level four based on the seriousness of the defamation; with an additional ‘exceptional’ category in cases where the defamatory statement causes very real damage to an individual’s reputation and the balance is decisively in favour of the vindication of good name.

The court used this assessment when assessing the reviews posted online by Manning. He accepted that he was responsible for four reviews published online, in which he described the company as “cowboys” and “gangsters” and stated that the Gardaí were “investigating the removing of items” from the property.

The court found it unlikely that the other individual was responsible for any of the reviews, and Manning told the court that he had posted one of the reviews under their name after his previous review had been taken down and his name blocked by the site.

The court commented that the reviews “far exceed what might be described as the normal criticism associated with the cut and thrust of business” and noted that they alleged criminal conduct on the part of the company. The court was satisfied that the four reviews met the definition of a ‘defamatory statement’ within the meeting of the Defamation Act 2009 and that the online reviews had the potential for wide circulation, and that word of mouth was an important factor in generating business for the company.

It also considered the length of time that the reviews were posted online, noting that two of the reviews were removed after 24 hours, and two were removed after four days. The relatively short period of time for which the reviews were live, together with the fact that the company was a well-established and trusted business, were factors in assessing the amount of compensation, according to the court.

While the company gave evidence of a reduction in sales during the period from February to September 2022, the court did not accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegations made in the reviews caused this. It did find, however, that the reviews had caused general reputational damage to the company.

The court also noted that while it did not amount to an apology as defined under the Defamation Act, Manning regretted the tone used in the reviews and apologised for reposting one of the reviews under the other individual’s name after his initial post was removed.

Considering the circumstances of the case, and the framework for assessing damages, the damages were determined to be in the ‘moderate’ category of seriousness of defamation, and the company was awarded €40,000.

In addition to highlighting the financial impact and reputational harm caused by even brief online posts, this decision highlights that the courts will use the guidelines for the assessment of damages set out in the 2022 Higgins case.

Extensions of limitation periods 

In another recent case (32-page / 267KB PDF), the High Court refused to grant an extension to the one-year limitation period for bringing a defamation action to court, offering insight into the factors that are considered when an extension is given or rejected.

The case concerned an application by Catherine Logan for an extension of the limitation period to bring a defamation action. The limitation period for bringing a defamation claim is one year, however, this can be extended by a court to two years if it is satisfied that the interests of justice require an extension, and whether the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff if the period was not extended would outweigh the prejudice suffered by the defendant if the extension was granted.

In this case, Logan sought damages for defamation arising from an email sent on 14 July 2023, two emails sent on 3 August 2021 and a telephone call on 3 August 2021. The action was issued on 2 August 2023, and Logan sought an extension of the normal one-year limited period to allow her to bring a claim in relation to the publications made on 3 August 2021.

Logan was a voluntary board member of the Jack & Jill Foundation and had previously provided communications and marketing consultancy services to Lefgem Limited, a company owned by her husband.

Lefgem was the owner of the Johnstown Estate and Hotel, and Peter Wilson and David Godwin each had interests in privately owned lodges on the Johnstown Estate. A dispute had arisen between Godwin and Wilson and Lefgem in relation services for the lodges.

Logan alleged that in August 2021, Wilson sent two allegedly defamatory emails to the CEO and head of fundraising at the Jack and Jill Foundation, and that Godwin made a call to the head of fundraising, questioning the charity’s association with Logan. Another email, with similar statements, was sent in July 2023 by Wilson to the charity’s general contact email address.

In considering whether to extend the limitation period, the court first considered the reasons for the delay given by Logan, as well as the effect of the delay on the evidence. It then considered whether the interests of justice required an extension and considered the prejudice suffered by each party.

The court found that the reasons given by Logan weren’t particularly persuasive, given that her primary reason for not issuing proceedings was that the charity was strugglingly due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, and she did not want to cause trouble for the charity by way of reputational damage, or disruption to its work.

Logan also argued that because she was home schooling her young children during the pandemic, the statements could not be given the consideration they deserved. The court found that these fell short of the sorts of reason that would engage the exceptional nature of its power to extend the limitation period.

Considering the effect of the delay on the evidence, the court found that it was entirely plausible that Godwin did not have a specific recollection of the phone call in August 2021. He was only made aware of the claim two years later, in August 2023, and the statement of claim lacked specifics of what he was alleged to have said.

The court noted that Logan had not claimed that the emails or call had caused damage to her reputation. Although proof of special damage isn’t required to bring a successful defamation action, in the circumstances, the court felt that Logan should have explained what damage had been caused.

It also considered that the purpose of a defamation action was to vindicate Logan’s reputation. Considering that the email in July 2023, which was still within the limitation period, was similar to the earlier publications by Wilson, the court believed that Logan could be publicly vindicated if she succeeded in her claim based on the July 2023 email and determined that the interests of justice did not require an extension of the limitation period.

The court found that, in relation to Wilson, it wasn’t clear that the prejudice to Logan would significantly outweigh the prejudice towards him from granting the extension.

In relation to Godwin, and in circumstances where he would be faced with a claim in relating to a phone call which he did recall and when the complaint was not made to him until two years after the call allegedly took place, the court refused to grant the extension of the limitation period.

Making statements in good faith

Finally, in another widely reported case, Gerry Adams was recently awarded €100,000 in damages in a defamation case brought against the BBC arising out of statements made in 2016 in a BBC Spotlight programme and in a related article.

The BBC relied on the defence of fair and reasonable reporting on a matter of public interest, as set out in Section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009, however, the jury found that the statements were not made in good faith, as required.

The Draft General Scheme of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, which is currently proceeding through the Irish legislative process, proposed the simplification of the defence of fair and reasonable reporting on a matter of public interest, a defence which has never succeeded in Ireland to date - but the proposed reform is not included in the current iteration of the bill.

Co-written by Laura Finn of Pinsent Masons.