Defamation

Defamation News


Expert Defamation Legal Advice

Call Defamation Ireland

Open 24 Hours a Day, 7 Days a Week
Lo Call - low charge for call - no charge for advice

Couple Awarded Compensation for Facebook Defamation by Neighbour

A couple from County Donegal have been awarded a total of €32,500 compensation for Facebook defamation at a hearing of the Letterkenny Circuit Civil Court.

The couple made their claim for Facebook defamation compensation after comments were placed on both their personal and business Facebook pages by their neighbour. The posts made on 5th and 6th February 2015 claimed that the female partner in the relationship was overweight, and the male partner was having an affair.

The couple took screenshots of the posts before deleting them, and then reported the offense to the gardaí. The couple also sought legal advice and claimed compensation for Facebook defamation against their neighbour. The neighbour admitted posting the defamatory comments, and a hearing was scheduled at the Letterkenny Circuit Civil Court for the assessment of damages.

At the hearing before Judge James O´Donoghue, an apology from the neighbour was read to the couple. In the apology, the neighbour admitted that the Facebook postings were “irresponsible and false” and an unjust attack on their reputation. The neighbour added he was ashamed and embarrassed by the harm he had caused them, and had “no rational explanation for the posting of the comments”.

Judge O´Donoghue was told that the couple had to explain to their fifteen-year-old children that the defamatory comments were not true, and that the couple´s business had lost clients because of the embarrassment that the postings had caused. Having reviewed the posts, the judge described them as “scurrilous and reckless”.

Awarding the couple €32,500 compensation for Facebook defamation, Judge O´Donoghue issued a warning about inappropriate Facebook posts. He said: “People perhaps with alcohol late at night can post these remarks and injure people’s character. It is a highly dangerous activity and can result in long term hurt to families and people’s good names and this is an example of that.”

Settlement of Compensation for Defamation by a Supermarket Manager Approved in Court

A judge at the Ennis Circuit Court has approved a settlement of compensation for defamation by a supermarket manager in favour of a seventeen-year-old girl.

On 5th November 2014, the unnamed teenager visited the Aldi store on Francis Street in Ennis with her infant brother, and an adult member of the Traveller community who had her own infant son with her.

While the party were in the store, they were approached by another customer, who told them she had heard the manager of the store tell a security guard to “keep an eye on the tinkers in aisle three”. The customer told the party that in her opinion the comment was made about them.

As the party continued to move around the store, the security guard followed them – maintaining “overt surveillance” over their activities. Eventually the adult Traveller confronted the store manager with what she had been told. The store manager denied the accusations, but the previous customer intervened and confirmed what she had heard the store manager say.

After telling her father what had happened in the Aldi store, he made a claim for compensation for defamation by a supermarket manager on her daughter´s behalf, alleging that she had been distressed, upset, humiliated and embarrassed.

It was claimed that the girl was very conscious of people looking at them, and upset at the thought that people might meet her outside of the store with a false impression that she did nothing to create. The girl is currently studying for her Leaving Certificate and hopes to train in Limerick for a third-level qualification in hairdressing and beauty therapy.

Aldi made an offer of compensation for defamation by a supermarket manager amounting to €7,500, but without an admission of liability or an apology. The girl´s father was not happy with the offer but, at the Ennis Circuit Court, Judge Gerald Keys heard that the family´s solicitor had recommended acceptance of the offer in the circumstances.

Judge Keys approved the settlement of compensation for defamation by a supermarket manager after hearing the girl´s Barrister tell the court “the pejorative and disparaging comment made by the store manager indicates a reckless form of racial stereotyping due to my client’s membership of the Traveller community”.

Widow Awarded Compensation for Defamatory Report of Husband´s Death

The widow of a Rathkeale Traveller, who died on holiday in Cologne, has been awarded €20,000 compensation for a defamatory report of her husband´s death.

On 24th April 2011, Patrick Hegarty (37) died of a heart attack while hitching his caravan to the back of his car. Patrick and his family were in Germany at the time as part of a group of Travellers who traditionally converge on Cologne around Easter. His body was flown back from Frankfurt to Dublin, and he was buried in Limerick a week later.

The following week, the Sunday World published an article about Patrick´s death – alleging that he had died due to an excess of alcohol, that the family had tried to transport his body back to Ireland in the back of a van, and that Patrick´s death had sparked riots at the site where the Travellers had congregated.

Patrick´s widow – Kathleen Hegarty – was particularly distressed by the newspaper report. She rang the Sunday World to complain, but never received a return call or an apology about how her dead husband and the family had been portrayed in the article. Consequently Kathleen consulted a solicitor and claimed compensation for the defamatory report of her husband´s death.

The newspaper denied the allegations, arguing that she could not claim that she had been defamed because she was not mentioned by name in the article. However, at the Limerick Circuit Court, Judge James O´Donohoe said that the core issue was whether the article injured a person´s reputation “in the eyes of reasonable members of society”.

The judge ruled that although Kathleen was not mentioned by name, she was clearly identifiable in the newspaper article as the deceased´s widow and that – in the context of Traveller´s culture and traditions – the comments made by the Sunday World would be “injurious to her good name in the community”. The judge awarded Kathleen €20,000 compensation for a defamatory report of her husband´s death and €5,000 to each of Kathleen´s brothers, who had also been referred to anonymously in the article.

Minister Reilly Settles Defamation Case against Associated Newspapers

Minister James Reilly has settled his defamation case against Associated Newspapers – the publishers of the Irish Mail on Sunday – for an undisclosed amount.

On 7th October 2012, the Irish Mail on Sunday published an article entitled “Reilly Link to Developer of Second Clinic”, alleging that the then Minister for Children had links with the property developer building an HSE primary care centre in Swords, Dublin.

In the article it was claimed that Dr Reilly had previously sold land to the same developer for the construction of luxury homes and implied that Dr Reilly had abused his position as Minister for Children by granting a public contract to a developer with whom he had personal links.

Minister Reilly took legal action in November 2012, and his defamation case against Associated Newspapers was scheduled to be heard at the High Court. However, before proceedings started, Judge Iseult O´Malley was told that the case had been settled for an undisclosed amount.

The hearing still went ahead and – instead of deciding the defamation case against Associated Newspapers, a representative from the Irish Mail on Sunday read an apology to Dr Reilly in which it was acknowledged that the “grave allegation” was without foundation and should not have been made.

The apology continued by saying any implication that the Minister had exploited his position in the Health Department was “wholly without foundation” and the Irish Mail on Sunday was happy to unreservedly apologise to Dr Reilly for any damage or distress caused by the article.

Mother and Daughter Awarded Compensation for being Defamed in Dunnes Stores

A mother and daughter have been awarded a combined €45,000 compensation for being defamed in Dunnes Stores at a hearing of the Limerick Circuit Court.

On 3rd May 2008, Mary McNamara and her daughter Tamara visited the Dunnes Stores at the Parkway Shopping Centre in Limerick in order to buy a confirmation dress. Unable to find anything suitable, they left the store, whereupon they were approached by a plain clothes security guard who asked them to return to the store because they had left without paying for a garment.

As the mother and daughter were innocent of any wrong-doing, they felt humiliated and embarrassed – especially as people they knew were watching on from the street. Mary McNamara sought legal advice and claimed compensation for being defamed in Dunnes Stores on her own behalf and on the behalf of her daughter.

The hearing into the claim was heard by Judge James O´Donohoe at the Limerick Circuit Court. At the hearing, Mary McNamara told the judge that she was very upset to be unjustifiably accused of theft, while the Dunnes Stores’ security guard – Syed Hasnain Alam – testified that he observed the two women on CCTV, and that Ms McNamara took an item from a hanger.

The security guard admitted that he had not been wearing security identification, and was told by Judge O´Donohoe that if had suspected the McNamara´s of theft, he should have called the Gardai. The judge said he took a serious view over the Dunnes Stores security guard not having a proper identification tag at the time he approached the McNamaras in the street.

Judge O´Donohoe awarded Mary McNamara €20,000 compensation for being defamed in Dunnes Store and Tamara €25,000. The judge commented “Dunnes Stores have to be more careful when approaching people in a public area” and said that he accepted the evidence of the two plaintiffs as credible, whereas he was more sceptical of the security guards account of events.

Former Archbishop Settles Defamation Case against RTÉ

A former Archbishop of Benin has settled his defamation case against RTÉ, whose Prime Time documentary “Mission to Prey” had alleged he was a paedophile.

In May 2011, RTÉ broadcast a Prime Time documentary “Mission to Prey”, in which it was alleged that Richard Burke (66) – a member of the Kiltegan Fathers and a former Archbishop of Benin in Nigeria – had an improper relationship with a Dolores Atwood when she was aged 14 in the 1980s.

As a result of the broadcast, Mr Burke brought a defamation case against RTÉ, claiming that the material used in the documentary branded him as a paedophile. He denied the claims that he had an improper relationship with Ms Atwood while she was a teenager, although he admitted having consensual sex with her when she was 20 years of age.

At the hearing to determine the defamation case against RTÉ, Mr Burke told the court he did not know he was going to be featured in the documentary until it was broadcast and he had been given no opportunity to respond to the allegations – despite Prime Time investigators stating that he had declined to be interviewed for the program.

The court heard that RTÉ denied the claims of defamation, and that Ms Attwood stood by her allegations. Representatives from Prime Time acknowledged that their statement suggesting that Mr Burke declined to be interviewed was incorrect and apologised to the cleric. The hearing was closed without a verdict being reached, as an agreement was reached between the two parties.

Outside the court, RTÉ´s Managing Director of News and Current Affairs – Kevin Bakhurst – told reporter that RTÉ had not paid any compensation to Mr Burke, but was contributing to his costs of bring the defamation case against RTÉ. Mr Burke´s solicitor said that the matter had been resolved to his client´s satisfaction.

David Speedie Awarded €85,000 at High Court Defamation Hearing

Former soccer player David Speedie has been awarded €85,000 compensation for claims he was suspected of criminal activity at a High Court defamation hearing.

Speedie brought his court action after the Sunday World claimed that the former Chelsea and Liverpool soccer player had links with criminal figures and that Gardai had reason to suspect he had been involved in criminal activity.

According to testimony given at the High Court defamation hearing, the newspaper published two articles in April 2011 which gave the impression Speedie was involved in smuggling or the transportation of drugs and had links to gangland crime.

During the five-day High Court defamation hearing, Speedie told the court the articles drew untrue conclusions from the fact that his fiancée is the sister of a woman married to Ritchie Thompson – the brother of convicted criminal “Fat” Freddie Thompson.

Speedie told the jury that the allegations damaged his reputation as a football pundit and led him fearing for his life and those close to him. He said he did not associate with criminals and drug dealers, or socialise with Ritchie Thompson.

The Sunday World, its editor Colm MacGinty and the reporter that wrote the story – Mick McCaffrey – denied that they had defamed Speedie and said that the content of the newspaper articles was true. McCaffrey said that his report was faithful to the notes he had taken on the day of the phone interview with Speedie.

At the end of the High Court defamation hearing, the jury was asked to consider eight questions regarding whether the content of the articles implied Gardai had reason to suspect that Speedie was engaged in criminal activity and associated with known criminals.

After two days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favour of Speedie and awarded him €85,000 compensation. The jury also recommended that the Sunday World publish an apology. Mr Justice John Hedigan told the jury while they may recommend the publishing of an apology, he could not compel the Sunday Mirror to do that.

Boylesports to Pay Compensation for Defamation in a Betting Shop

The bookmaker Boylesports has been ordered to pay €5,000 compensation for defamation in a betting shop to a customer unjustifiably denied a bet and barred.

In November 2013, Christopher Sower went to place a bet at the Boylesports betting shop in Parkway, Dublin; when he was told by the assistant manager – Ashley Fitzpatrick – that he could not bet in the shop and that he was barred from ever entering the premises again.

As it turned out Ms Fitzpatrick had confused Christopher with another customer who had previously been disruptive in the betting shop, but Christopher was “mortified and embarrassed” by what the assistant manager had said because it was within earshot of other customers that knew him.

A few days later Christopher telephoned Boylesports customer services to report the incident and was offered an apology and a free €100 bet. Christopher declined the offer and instead sought legal advice and made a claim for compensation for defamation in a betting shop.

At the Circuit Civil Court, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke heard that Ms Fitzpatrick had made the allegations in error because she had only been told about the disruptive customer by her manager, who had failed to show her a photograph of the customer she was supposed to bar.

Boylesports admitted that a mistake had been made, but argued that Ms Fitzpatrick had later realized her mistake and apologized to Christopher. Furthermore, the betting company claimed, it was unlikely that any other customers in the betting shop had been aware of the alleged defamatory incident.

After finding that the manager of the Parkway betting shop had been negligent by failing to provide adequate identification of the disruptive customer, and saying that he was satisfied that Christopher had been defamed, Judge Groarke ordered Boylesports to pay Christopher €5,000 compensation for defamation in a betting shop.

Woman and Son Secure Compensation for Defamation on Facebook against the HSE

A woman and her son are to receive €40,000 compensation for defamation on Facebook after the settlement of their claim was approved at the High Court.

The woman and her son – who cannot be named for legal reasons – made their claim for compensation for defamation on Facebook following the child being placed in foster care in 2011. It was alleged that while the boy was in the care of foster parents, they posted a number of Facebook entries containing pictures of the boy and making “false, untrue and highly defamatory” statements about his mother.

The woman claimed that the pictures and the comments accompanying them should never have been published on social media, and that – as the Health Service Executive (HSE) was responsible for placing her son in the care of the foster parents – the HSE was in breach of its statutory duty of care. The mother and son also claimed that their rights to privacy under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights had also be breached.

Following further allegations that the woman had been subject to ridicule and contempt, and her character had been damaged, the HSE settled the claim for compensation for defamation on Facebook for €40,000. However, as the claim was partly made on behalf of a child, the settlement had first to be approved by a judge.

Consequently the settlement hearing was held at the High Court before Mr Justice Kevin Cross. After hearing the circumstances of the case, Judge Cross approved the settlement of compensation for defamation on Facebook and awarded costs against the HSE.

Woman Awarded €10,500 Compensation for being Defamed by a Bus Driver

A woman from Dublin, who was publicly humiliated by a bus driver, has been awarded €10,500 compensation for being defamed by the Circuit Civil Court.

In March 2014, Lana Froze from Rush in Dublin boarded the Nº 33 Dublin Bus to travel to the Premier Inn in Swords where she worked. As she was using her Leapcard, Lana paid €2.50 for the regular €3.05 fare as she was within her rights to do.

As the bus approached Swords Main Street, the driver of the bus pulled over and told Lana she had to get off the bus – two stops before her destination – as this was as far as she had paid to travel. Lana refused, and the bus driver went back to his seat, turned off the engine and refused to drive the bus any further until Lana disembarked.

Embarrassed and concerned that she was making other passengers late for work, Lana got off the bus and walked the rest of the way to work. She complained to Dublin Bus, who apologised and offered her €7,500 compensation for being defamed; but Lana refused the compensation settlement and took her claim to court.

At the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke heard that the same driver had told Lana several weeks previously that she had to pay extra to travel to her work, but had allowed her to stay on the bus. On this occasion however, Lana said, she felt humiliated by the driver´s actions which had “held passengers to ransom”.

After hearing that Lana had done nothing wrong by using her Leapcard to pay the €2.50 fare instead of €3.05, Judge Groarke awarded Lana €10,500 compensation for being defamed in public plus her legal costs. Judge Groarke commented that Dublin Bus had failed to acknowledge that Lana was unjustifiably humiliated in its apology.