Defamation awards ‘more predictable’, event hears
Experts on defamation law have told a conference in Dublin that awards for damages have been more predictable since a key Supreme Court ruling.
In , the court identified a range of damages for defamation actions.
Caren Geoghegan SC told a dispute-resolution event organised by Mason Hayes & Curran (MHC) that court judgments had been applying the ranges set out in Higgins, leading to more predictability in awards.
Jury change ‘overstated’
A panel chaired by MHC partner Gerard Kelly SC discussed proposals contained in the , which includes a proposal to abolish juries in High Court cases.
Speaking ahead of the panel discussion, Minister Jim O’Callaghan said that the significance of this measure had been “overstated”, adding that it was “indisputable” that the removal of juries would shorten the length of cases.
Eoin McCullough SC told the conference, however, that, while jury trials were more protracted, judgments arrived more quickly.
A survey of 140 professionals carried out at the conference found that 95% thought that a judge would deliver more predictable outcomes on liability and damages.
Almost two-thirds (65%) also said that Ireland’s defamation laws currently struck the right balance between freedom of expression and protecting reputation.
Public-interest defence
The event heard that the ‘public-interest’ defence contained in current legislation had been largely unsuccessful in Ireland.
Geoghegan described the current wording – in section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009 – as “clumsy”, adding that its simplification in the new bill would have an impact.
McCullough agreed that the bill simplified the test – “but not enormously,” he added.
The barrister also pointed to a new ‘reportage’ defence being introduced in the proposed legislation, which he believed would make a difference. This covers cases where a defendant simply reports on a controversy that is in the public domain.
He concluded, however, that he was not sure that the bill would make an enormous amount of difference.
SLAPPs
MHC ‘of counsel’ Eimear O’Brien said that the bill also contained a new defence, long requested by retailers, that covers communications in the retail context.
On SLAPPs, the conference heard that the new bill would introduce specific procedures, but Geoghegan said that it was not obvious to her that the changes would make it easier to dismiss a SLAPP than any other action.
“There isn’t anything in the bill that suggests that the legislature intends to shift the burden of proof [to the plaintiff],” she stated.