Category: Defamation

Multiple publication; multiple reform?

| No Comments
| Defamation, Libel tourism, Multiple publication

Multiple PublicationAt common law, the rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 established that each individual publication of a libel gives rise to a separate cause of action, subject to its own limitation period; hence, if the same publication is read many years later, that is a new publication giving rise to a new cause of action. It has been abolished in Ireland by section 11 of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), which provides:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person has one cause of action only in respect of a multiple publication.

(2) A court may grant leave to a person to bring more than one defamation action in respect of a multiple publication where it considers that the interests of justice so require.

(3) In this section “multiple publication” means publication by a person of the same defamatory statement to 2 or more persons (other than the person in respect of whom the statement is made) whether contemporaneously or not.

Moreover section 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (Defamation) 2009 (SI No 511 of 2009) provides for procedures relating to applications under section 11, though I am not aware of any caselaw yet on that section.…

Read More »

News: Reframing Libel event – papers now available « Inforrm’s Blog

| No Comments
| Defamation, General


19
03
2011

In November 2010 we reported on the Reframing Libel” event at City University London.  This brought together academics, practitioners, and campaigners to discuss the future of libel reform.   We subsequently published posts based on the contributions by Razi Mireskandari (one of our most popular posts), Dominic Crossley and Hugh Tomlinson (Part 1 and Part 2).

Writing on her “Meeja law” blog journalist and researcher Judith Townend (who was involved in the organisation of the event) reports that,  to coincide with the government’s publication of the Draft Defamation Bill, the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism at City University London has made digital papers available here.

via inforrm.wordpress.com
…

Read More »

The UK’s libel reform proposals are a good start

| 11 Comments
| Defamation, Libel tourism, Multiple publication

UK Ministry of Justice logo, via their siteThe UK’s Ministry of Justice has announced its long-awaited consultation on the reform of the UK’s libel laws. Much of the territory covered by draft Defamation Bill was covered in Ireland by the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), though there are some important differences as well. In this post, I want briefly to compare and contrast the UK Bill [the Bill] with the Irish Act [the Act]. To spoil the conclusion (for those of you who won’t read further than this opening paragraph) the Bill is largely in line the Act, and, in this respect, I am reminded of the Irish adage “tosach maith, leath na h-oibre“: a good start is half the work. In the end, that is what the Bill is: a good start.

Similarities
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for a defence of responsible publication on matter of public interest. In many ways, this analagous to the defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest contained in section 26 of the Act. But clause 2 is a far less mealy mouthed version of the defence than the unworkably narrow section 26 is: there are fewer hurdles to be jumped by a defendant seeking to rely upon it.…

Read More »

Group defamation in the Supreme Court of Canada

| No Comments
| Defamation, General

Section 10 of the Defamation Act, 2009 provides

Where a person publishes a defamatory statement concerning a class of persons, a member of that class shall have a cause of action under this Act against that person if –
(a) by reason of the number of persons who are members of that class, or
(b) by virtue of the circumstances in which the statement is published,
the statement could reasonably be understood to refer, in particular, to the member concerned.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, noted here by Inforrm, can help fill in some of the gaps in that section. Some extracts:

Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., 2011 SCC 9 (CanLII) (17 March 2011)

Deschamps J. —

[1]                              The law of defamation is a tool for protecting personal reputations.  This right keeps pace with changes in society and in the importance attached by society to freedom of expression.  In Quebec, actions in defamation are governed by the general principles of civil liability.  The flexibility of those principles makes it possible to address society’s growing concerns about freedom of expression.  … The Court must examine the factors to consider when determining whether racist comments made about a group can cause a compensable injury.

…

Read More »

Prior restraint and permanent injunctions in defamation cases – updated

| 5 Comments
| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint

Irish Daily Star on Sunday MastheadIn Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (03 November 2010), the first reported judgment on the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), Matthews J granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the Act (also here) that an article published by the defendant was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation.

In an earlier post (also here), I have already looked at some issues arising from this decision. Another critical aspect of Matthew J’s judgment was that, although the plaintiff was a convicted criminal, he nevertheless possessed a residual reputation which was damaged by the newspaper’s allegations. Of course, evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation is admissible in evidence in mitigation of damages (see section 31(4)(g) and section 31(6)(a) of the Act (also here); see also Hill v Cork Examiner Publications [2001] 4 IR 219, [2001] IESC 95 (14 November 2001) and the recent decision of Tugendhat J in Hunt v Evening Standard [2011] EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011)). However, this is a long way from saying that such a general bad reputation renders a plaintiff libel-proof.…

Read More »

Prior restraint and temporary injunctions in defamation cases

| 7 Comments
| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint

Irish Daily Star on Sunday MastheadSome orders have been made on foot of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here) – see, for example, Lowry v Smyth (background here and here; coverage of the order here), Mellon v Associated Newspapers (coverage here), and Meegan v Associated Newspapers (coverage here) – but Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (03 November 2010) remains the only reported judgment on provisions of the Act. In that case, the newspaper had published an article headlined Larry’s Secret Shower Buddy, purporting to expose a a “seedy”, “weird”, “bizarre” and “secretive” homosexual relationship in prison between the plaintiff Barry Watters and Larry Murphy, a notorious criminal who had been convicted of rape and attempted murder. Matthews J held that the plaintiff had a residual reputation which was damaged by the newspaper’s allegations. He therefore granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the 2009 Act (also here) that the article was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the 2009 Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation. Nevertheless, the newspaper repeated the defamation: in an article alongside a photograph of Watters the newspaper had stated:

We may have to apologise to this revolting pervert but will we mean it?

…

Read More »

More media coverage of Lowry v Smyth

| No Comments
| Defamation, General
Michael Lowry

Further to my links to coverage by RTÉ and the Irish Times, here is some more media coverage of Lowry v Smyth:

Judge refuses Lowry request in defamation case, via irishexaminer.com

Michael Lowry loses bid for summary judgment against Sam Smyth, via thejournal.ie

Tax-evading Irish lawmaker Lowry loses libel case, AP via google.com

Tax-evading Irish lawmaker Lowry loses libel case, AP via forbes.com

Judge refuses Lowry request in defamation case, via breakingnews.ie

Lowry fails to secure summary ruling in Smyth defamation case, via irishtimes.com

Lowry refused defamation judgment, via independent.ie

Michael Lowry Refused Request In Defamation Case, via thurles.info…

Read More »

Lowry fails in ruling on Smyth claim – The Irish Times

| No Comments
| Defamation, General

Lowry fails in ruling on Smyth claim

Independent TD Michael Lowry arriving at the Moriarty Tribunal in Dublin Castle in April 2009. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh/The Irish Times Independent TD Michael Lowry arriving at the Moriarty Tribunal in Dublin Castle in April 2009. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh/The Irish Times

Related

 

COLM KEENA Public Affairs Correspondent

Independent deputy for North Tipperary Michael Lowry has failed to get a summary ruling in a defamation case where he claimed journalist Sam Smyth had accused him of being a thief.

Judge Margaret Heneghan delivered judgment today in a case under the 2009 Defamation Act where Mr Lowry was seeking a summary ruling that comments by Smyth were defamatory, that Smyth had no reasonable defence to the comments, and that an order for a correction should be made.

In a hearing in December Smyth had argued that he had not called Mr Lowry a thief, but that he did believe the politician was a liar and a tax cheat.

Judge Heneghan said she had read through the exhibits attached to Smyth’s affidavit, which included matters to do with the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals, Mr Lowry’s dealings with Dunnes Stores, his personal statement to the Dáil in 1996, and the two publications that Mr Lowry is alleging were defamatory.

…

Read More »

© cearta.ie 2024. Powered by WordPress