Defamation reform in Ireland could bring changes to legal practice

A bill designed to reform defamation laws in Ireland fell when the Oireachtas (the parliament) was dissolved last November for the general election. However, when the Dáil reformed late last year, the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 was restored. The Bill has subsequently reached the committee stage in parliament – the third step in it being scrutinised by members of the Dáil.

The law of defamation in Ireland is currently governed by the Defamation Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The publication of the Bill follows a lengthy review process, which began in 2016 with a public consultation to inform a review of the operation of the 2009 Act. The Bill aims to address concerns raised during the public consultation. We look at some of the proposed reforms below.

Abolition of juries in High Court defamation cases

One of the main objectives of the Bill is to abolish juries in defamation cases. If passed, defamation actions brought after the entry into force of Part 3 of the Bill will be heard by a judge alone. This amendment would be transformative, as it aims to reduce the likelihood of disproportionate awards of damages, reduce delays and legal costs, and reduce the duration of defamation trials.

Anti-SLAAP provisions

The Bill introduces new provisions regarding ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’, or SLAPP proceedings, to give effect to the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive of 2024. The purpose of that legislation is essentially to prevent powerful and rich people and companies from commencing legal proceedings against those that engage in legitimate scrutiny of and comment on their affairs in the knowledge that the cost of defending against such claims is likely to be prohibitive for many of their opponents or critics.

Under Part 7 of the Bill, where a defendant is of the view that defamation proceedings were initiated because of their engagement in ‘public participation’, they would be able to seek a declaration that the proceedings amount to abusive court proceedings against public participation. The court would be able to take such a declaration into account when awarding costs. These provisions also provide that where a defendant brings an application for security for costs, or to strike out the proceedings as being manifestly unfounded, the court would deal with such applications as expeditiously as possible.

Serious harm threshold introduced for body corporates

Under current defamation laws in Ireland, a body corporate trading for profit can bring a defamation action regardless of whether that body has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication.

Part 4 of the Bill introduces a ‘serious harm’ threshold for corporate bodies seeking to bring defamation proceedings. A ‘serious harm’ test was written into changes in defamation laws in England and Wales when the law there was changed in 2013.

To bring a defamation action in Ireland, under the proposed reforms, a corporate body will have to show that the statement is likely to cause serious harm to its reputation. Where the body corporate trades for profit, harm will not be considered ‘serious harm’ unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm financial loss to the body corporate. 

Qualified privilege defence extended

Under section 8 of the Bill, the scope of the defence of qualified privilege to claims of ‘transient retail defamation’ would be extended. This new statutory defence for retailers would apply where the statement made consists of an inquiry as to whether a person paid for goods or services, had goods in their possession, had obtained services or had proof of payment for such goods or services. The defence would also apply where a statement is made that the form of payment tendered is incapable of being accepted, for example, a forged banknote.

To rely on this proposed new defence, the statement would have to have been made by a person who had a duty or interest in making it, and the statement would have to not have been published excessively.

‘Live broadcast’ defence

The Bill introduces a proposed new defence to a defamation action brought on foot of a statement made during the broadcast of a live programme. To rely on this defence, the broadcaster would have to demonstrate that it took reasonable and prudent precautions both before and during the broadcast to prevent the publication of defamatory statements by a contributor or uninvited participants. The Bill outlines a list of specific matters that the court would have to have regard to when assessing whether reasonable and prudent precautions were taken, such as the level of effective control the broadcaster could reasonably be expected to have over the relevant person making the statement, and the extent to which the broadcaster carried out an appropriate risk assessment. The proposed new defence would not extend to the person who made the defamatory statement.

Power for the Circuit Court to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order

The latest draft of the Bill (amended on 30 April 2025) proposes a new power for the Circuit Court to grant an identification order, commonly known as a Norwich Pharmacal order, which is essentially a disclosure order – directing an intermediary service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous publisher. This proposal was included in the Draft General Scheme of the Bill, but not in the Bill itself, but was reintroduced at Committee Stage on 30 April 2025.

Additional proposed reforms

Several other reforms are proposed via the Bill.

The Bill requires that a correction and apology be published in a manner that ensures that it will be given the same or similar prominence as was given to the defamatory statement, unless the person to whom the statement refers to requests otherwise. Under the current law, a correction and apology only need to be published in such manner as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances.

Requirements for solicitors to advise their clients in advance of issuing defamation proceedings in relation to specified alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures are also built into the Bill.  Solicitors are already obliged under the Mediation Act 2017 to provide details to clients regarding mediation prior to issuing proceedings. Under the Bill, solicitors would also be required to advise clients of the procedures for making a complaint to the Press Council regarding the conduct of one of its members, as well as in relation to the scheme for the exercise of the right to reply under the Broadcasting Act 2009, which provides a mechanism for the correction of incorrect facts or information published by broadcasters regulated in Ireland. Recent amendments to the Bill provide that where a person makes a complaint to the Press Council, the time period between the making of the complaint, and its determination by the Press Council would be disregarded for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing a defamation action. Similarly, where a person exercises their right of reply, the time period between the making of the request for the right of reply, and the delivery of the decision would be disregarded. The limitation period for bringing a defamation action in Ireland is one year, which is extendable to two years if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice require an extension, and where 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.

Under the current law, it is possible for a person accused of defamation to raise a defence that it made an offer to make amends that was not accepted. In those cases, to overcome that defence, the person claiming defamation must prove that it was known to the defendant, or the defendant ought reasonably to have known, that the statement referred to them or was likely to be understood as referring to them, and that the statement was false and defamatory. Section 10 of the Bill provides that where a person made an offer to make amends and it was not accepted, it will not be a defence if the person alleging defamation proves that the defendant, at the time of the publication of the statement,  knew that, or was reckless as to whether, the statement referred to them or was likely to be understood as referring to them, and was false and defamatory.

Under section 7 of the Bill, the territorial scope of the defence of absolute privilege would also be extended, to fair and accurate reports of proceedings held in public, or decisions made public, by courts established under the law of any state or place. Under current defamation laws, the scope of the defence is limited to reports of public proceedings and decisions in the courts in Ireland or Northern Ireland.

A pivotal moment for defamation law in Ireland and what comes next

The current iteration of the Bill does not include some measures included in the Draft General Scheme of the Bill, which was published in March 2023. These include simplification of the defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest; and a power for the court to award damages for harm suffered by a person targeted by a SLAPP. It is expected that these further reforms will be introduced as the Bill makes its way through the Oireachtas.

Further proposed reforms which could also hit the statute book via the Bill include provisions to address ‘libel tourism’, to restrict the Irish courts’ scope to hear defamation claims to only cases where they are satisfied that Ireland is “clearly the most appropriate place” to bring the action, and a new notice of complaint procedure, whereby a person who believes that a defamatory statement has been made about them on an online platform would be able to submit a notice to that platform. 

Co-written by Jane Bourke of Pinsent Masons.