About this case:

• Citation:
  Record No. 2023/00112
• Court:
  Circuit Court

Delivering judgment for the Circuit Court, His Honour Judge Meehan held that the statements amounted “to an assertion that the plaintiff was a bad father who fought with his wife and caused upset to his young daughter. They included an allegation of verbal abuse and perhaps controlling behaviour that caused his daughter’s mental health to suffer. These are certainly matters that tend to injure the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.”

Michael O’Doherty BL appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Lavelle Partners LLP, and Shane English BL appeared for the defendants, instructed by Corrigan and Corrigan Solicitors.

Background

On 14 May 2023, seven people including the plaintiff’s 15-year-old daughter were baptised at the first defendant church in Tullamore. The second and third defendants were pastors of that church.

During the ceremony, which was livestreamed on the church’s Facebook page, the plaintiff’s daughter made a speech in which she made claims to the effect that the plaintiff was a bad father. The second defendant praised the plaintiff’s daughter for making the said claims.

The video was subsequently removed by from the Facebook page on 2 June 2023 following the receipt of a letter of claim from the plaintiff’s solicitors.

The plaintiff issued Circuit Court proceedings thereafter.

Submissions

The plaintiff submitted that the statements were untrue and had “spread like wildfire”, with various people approaching him and phoning him to discuss the video following its publication to those physically present in the church and online on the Facebook page.

The defendants submitted that the statements were not defamatory, in that the meaning of the words was not made out and neither the plaintiff’s daughter nor the plaintiff were identifiable from the video. 

The defendants also suggested that the plaintiff was not named in the subject publication, and that the defendants were not publishers of the alleged defamatory words.

The Circuit Court

Having heard the parties’ submissions, Judge Meehan set out the relevant provisions of the Defamation Act 2009 (as amended).

The judge disagreed with the defendant that the plaintiff was not identifiable from the video which he found to be “very clear”, and with the contention that the statements were not defamatory, noting that the “meaning of the words is crystal clear”.

Having been satisfied that the words constituted a “defamatory statement” within the meaning of s.2 of the 2009 Act, the court moved to consider the issue of whether the defendants were “publishers” for the purposes of establishing liability for defamation.

Judge Meehan had particular regard to, inter alia, Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 concerning the liability of ‘secondary’ publishers, explaining that the defendants “provided a platform for the plaintiff’s daughter but did not know what she would say” and had “no knowing involvement in the publication of the particular words complained of”.

Recognising that, since the enactment of the 2009 Act, secondary publishers could avail of the statutory defence of innocent publication in s.27 thereof, the court found it unnecessary to consider that issue any further where the defendants could avail of the defence of qualified privilege in respect of the in-church publication of the impugned statements, the statements having been published to persons with an interest in receiving the information in the statement and the defendants having a corresponding interest in communicating the information to such persons.

In respect of the online publication, Judge Meehan found that the defendants were publishers in circumstances where they operated and controlled the Facebook page and organised a livestream of the ceremony, making same available for a period of 20 days during which they were “fully aware of the content of the defamatory statement”.

The court also found the second defendant’s reaction to the making of the statements “informative” and evidence that “he was not particularly surprised by what she had said”. The court was convinced that the defendants were aware of the words immediately as they were spoken and having failed to remove the video, they became primary publishers in relation to the online publication.

Noting that the online publication reached a group of persons “not easily identifiable” with no apparent interest in receiving the information contained in the daughter’s statements and who the defendants could not have reasonably believed to have had such an interest, Judge Meenan ruled that the defence of qualified privilege was not established.

The Circuit Court also considered the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff, having failed to issue proceedings against his daughter within the statutory limitation period, should be identified with her wrongdoing pursuant to s.35(1)(i) of the Civil Liability Act 1961, remarking that the plaintiff’s daughter could also have availed of the defence of qualified privilege in respect of the in-church publication.

The court found that the case fell into the “medium” range of cases as described in Higgins v Irish Aviation Authority [2023] IR 65 and set the headline damages award at €30,000.

The court attributed 60 per cent of the damage to the online publication and 40 per cent thereof to the in-church publication, resulting in a reduction of the award to €18,000 where the defence of qualified privilege was accepted in relation to the latter.

Judge Meenan also determined that a reduction of 20 per cent should be applied to the award due to the plaintiff’s daughter being a concurrent wrongdoer for the purposes of s.35(1)(i) of the 1961 Act.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Circuit Court held the defendants 48 per cent liable for the total damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and awarded €14,400 in damages.

Warren Walsh v Cornerstone Slieve Bloom Church & Ors, Record No. 2023/00112