Developments in the application of Defamation law in Ireland

The High Court has provided guidance on the application of defamation law in two recent cases, Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Limited v Manning & Anor and Logan v Wilson.

In Stillorgan Gas the Court addressed appropriate damages for defamatory comments made online. Stillorgan Gas had carried out work in a rental property which was owned by the sisters of James Manning. Mr Manning posted a number of reviews on Trustpilot and the company’s Google review page following a dispute over the price of the work done.

Manning accepted that he was responsible for four out of the ten reviews posted online about the company and accepted he had referred to the company as ‘con men’, ‘gangsters’ and ‘cowboys’.

The court found that the reviews ‘far exceed what might be described as the normal criticism associated with the cut and thrust of business…’ and found that the reviews did meet the definition of a defamatory statement under Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2009.

The court used the framework set out in the 2022 Supreme Court decision of Higgins v Irish Aviation Authority to assess damages. The court found the appropriate award of damages was €40,000 which falls into the moderate category for damages for Defamation.

Although the court accepted that the reviews had a reputational damage on the company, it did not accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegations caused a reduction in sales.

In the case of Logan v Wilson an application was brough by the plaintiff to extend the one-year limitation period to bring a defamation action to two years.

The plaintiff is a voluntary board member of a charity known as the Jack and Jill Foundation and had previously provided interiors, communications and marketing consultancy services to a company called Lefgem Ltd which was owned by her husband. Lefgem Ltd own the Johnstown Estate and the first and second named defendants acquired an interest in lodges on the Johnstown Estate.

A dispute arose between Lefgem Ltd and the first and second named defendant over Lefgem disconnecting services to the first and second named defendant’s lodges.

The plaintiff claimed damages for defamation arising out of two emails from the first named defendant and a phone call from the second named defendant to the CEO and Head of Fundraising of the Jack and Jill Foundation on the 3 August 2021 and an email from the first named defendant on the 14 July 2023. The proceedings were issued on the 2 August 2023, and the plaintiff sought an extension of the one-year limitation period for Defamation actions.

The plaintiff provided that the reasons for the delay in issuing proceedings was because she did not want to cause trouble for the Jack and Jill Foundation during a time when they were struggling due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that she was home schooling her children at the time and so “the statements made by the defendants did not receive the consideration they perhaps deserved”.

Section 11(3A) of the Statute of Limitations provides that the court shall not extend time unless the interest of justice requires it or if the prejudice that the plaintiff would suffer if the direction were not given would significantly outweigh the prejudice that the defendant would suffer if the direction were given. This section also states that the court shall have regard to the reason for the failure to bring the action within the specified period.

The court found that the plaintiff’s reasons for the delay weren’t particularly persuasive and noted that the lack of information on special damages had a bearing on the analysis. Although defamation is actionable without proof of special damages, the court found in these circumstances that the plaintiff should have explained what damages had been caused.

The court found that the reasons set out by the plaintiff fall short of the sort of reasons that would justify an extension of time. The court also noted that the purpose of a defamation action was to vindicate the plaintiff’s reputation and considering the 2023 email, which was still within the limitation period, was similar to the 2021 emails the plaintiff could be vindicated if she was successful in her claim based on the 2023 email.

The court found that it wasn’t shown that the prejudice to the plaintiff would significantly outweigh the prejudice to the first named defendant if the extension was granted. The court also noted that the second named defendant had no recollection of the alleged telephone call and in those circumstances refused to grant the extension to the Plaintiff to bring the Defamation action.