by David Phelan , Eimear Kinsella April-11-2025 in Commercial & Business, Defamation
Between High Court decisions and upcoming legislative amendments, the law of defamation in Ireland continues to develop. We look at those developments here.
Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Limited -v- Manning and Manning [2025] IEHC 90
In this recent High Court decision, the Court considered an application for an award of damages, where it had been found the Defendants had made defamatory statements about the Plaintiff.
Facts of the case:
- The Plaintiff is in the business of heating, plumbing and electrical services and the Defendants are a separated couple residing in Dublin. The Defendants engaged the Plaintiff to carry out work on the heating system at their property in Ranelagh, Dublin.
- It appeared that an external circulating water pump had stopped working and needed to be replaced. The First Defendant had been of the view that the work to be done was for the service of a boiler in the property but that the price of the job doubled when it was to be carried out. On that basis, the Defendant refused to pay for the work, the Plaintiff removed parts it had installed for the works, which in turn led to a heated exchange between the parties and the Defendants subsequently posting defamatory comments online in relation to the Plaintiff.
- There were a number of reviews which were critically negative of the Plaintiff company posted online, some of which the First Defendant was responsible for and which referred to the Plaintiff as “gangsters”, “conmen” and “cowboys” who had illegally removed items from the Defendants’ property.
The Court considered various factors which are taken into account when awards are made in defamation actions in the High Court, as referred to in Casey v McMenamin [2024] IEHC 705. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Higgins, which set down ranges of damages to be awarded depending on the seriousness of the defamation. In this instance, given the nature and gravity of the allegations in the defamatory statements, the means of publication of the defamatory statement and the extent of circulation of the statements, and having regard to the brackets of damages, the High Court found that the damages fell within the “moderate” category of seriousness. The Court also took into account that some of the reviews were taken down after twenty-four hours and some removed after four days, which it thought a relatively short time for the reviews to have been posted.
The Court held that an award of €40,000 was appropriate in the circumstances.
Ganley and Rivada Networks Ltd -v- Cable News Network, Inc. & Ors [2025] IEHC 62
This High Court decision concerned jurisdictional matters and an application by the Defendants to stay defamation proceedings in Ireland, on the basis of forum non conveniens i.e. that the Courts of the United States were the appropriate ones in which proceedings should have been brought.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the defamation, which related to a story published by CNN in relation to an entity “Rivada”, referred to a group of companies including an Irish-registered company. The Defendants argued that the story referred to a US-registered company and the claim should have been pursued in the US Courts. It was noted that the Defendants’ application did not contest jurisdiction, strictly speaking. Rather, the Defendants argued that the Irish Courts should refuse to exercise their jurisdiction, as there was a more appropriate forum available.
The Court considered it would be unjust to stay the Irish proceedings, as the limitation period for the issuing of any US proceedings had expired, the Defendants refused to allow the limitation period to be waived, and therefore the Plaintiffs would be refused access to the Courts in both jurisdictions. It was noted that the proceedings were served upon the Defendants long before the limitation period expired in the United States, yet the Defendants did not argue at that point that United States was the more appropriate forum to bring proceedings.
The Defendants’ application to stay the Irish proceedings was dismissed.
Defamation legislative amendments
These decisions highlight the developments in awards for damages in defamation actions, particularly since the O’Higgins decision. It is worth noting that the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 was due to be introduced in 2024, but the Bill was not passed before the dissolution of the government in November 2024. It has been included in the Government’s legislative agenda for Spring 2025. One of the key changes proposed by the Bill is the abolition of jury trials in High Court defamation actions, which would inevitably reduce disproportionate awards for damages.
The Ganley decision also calls into question the appropriate jurisdiction in which defamation proceedings should issue.
Back to Full NewsShare this article:
About the Authors
.jpg)
David Phelan
David is Head of the Commercial & Business team at Hayes solicitors and advises a number of the firm’s major corporate clients. He advises on a wide range of corporate and commercial law issues. He has expertise in advising on general corporate and commercial matters, particularly in the manufacturing, retail, aviation, sports and motor sectors, and also frequently advises clients who operate in regulated areas.
Eimear Kinsella
Eimear is a solicitor in the Commercial and Business team at Hayes solicitors LLP. Since qualification, Eimear has assisted in advising on a range of commercial and business matters, including debt recovery actions, regulatory matters, defamation and media law, contractual issues, intellectual property and general litigation cases.