Establishing Damages Assessment Parameters in Online Defamation: The Stillorgan Gas Precedent

Introduction

The case of Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Ltd v Manning & Anor (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 90) marks a significant development in the assessment of damages in defamation actions arising from online publications. In this matter, the plaintiff, a well‐established private limited company specializing in gas, heating, plumbing, and electrical services in Dublin and surrounding areas, sought compensation for reputational damage allegedly caused by defamatory reviews published by the first-named defendant. The defendants in this case—a married couple residing in Rathfarnham, Dublin—were involved in a complex factual matrix that included contractual disputes over work performance on a domestic property as well as subsequent online reviews that went well beyond mere criticism.

At the heart of the dispute was the claim that multiple online reviews, some of which included allegations of criminal conduct and descriptions such as “cowboys,” “gangsters,” and “rogue traders,” compromised the company’s reputation and good standing. The legal issue focused on measuring not only the inherent defamation but also the economic harm associated with a temporary loss in business, even though the adverse effects on sales caused by the online criticism were not conclusively sustained. A judgment in default of appearance had been previously granted by Coffey J., and the present proceedings concerned the assessment of damages under the Defamation Act 2009.

Summary of the Judgment

In the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley on 11 February 2025, the court provided a comprehensive analysis of the defamatory reviews. The judgment confirmed that the first-named defendant was responsible for four online reviews that met the definition of defamation under Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2009. These reviews contained statements that were untrue and inherently damaging to the company’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. Despite any mitigating circumstances – such as the relatively short duration the reviews were posted online – the cumulative effect of these statements was deemed significant.

Relying on the statutory framework of the Defamation Act 2009, particularly sections 31 (relating to general and special damages) and 32 (concerning aggravated and punitive damages), and reinforcing the guidance established in previous judgments including Higgins v The Irish Aviation Authority [2022] IESC 13 and Casey v McMenamin [2024] IEHC 705, the court assessed the level of damage as falling within the “moderate” category. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded €40,000 in damages.

The judgment also addressed costs, indicating that the default position would be that costs follow the event, with particular attention paid to the conduct and participation (or lack thereof) of the defendants during the proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision in this case is anchored on key precedents that serve to guide the assessment of damages in defamation actions. Notably, the judgment referenced:

• Higgins v The Irish Aviation Authority [2022] IESC 13: In this case, MacMenamin J. identified four broad categories (or brackets) for general damages awards in defamation actions, ranging from moderate to exceptional. The categorization provided a framework to classify defamatory material by its nature, seriousness, and contextual factors.
• Casey v McMenamin [2024] IEHC 705: This recent High Court decision put forward practical applications of the factors set out in the Defamation Act 2009 and determined damages for defamatory posts on social media (Facebook and Trustpilot). The analysis by Nolan J. in that case reinforced the critical importance of assessing the reach and permanence of online publications.

These precedents not only provided a quantitative framework for damages but also underscored the need for a holistic view that considers the manner of publication, the nature of the allegations, and the broader reputational impact. The court in the Stillorgan Gas case adopted this analytical framework, carefully weighing each factor before arriving at a compensation figure.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning rests on several fundamental points:

• Definition of Defamation: The court reiterated that the defamatory reviews, in their ordinary and natural interpretation, were injurious to the reputation of the plaintiff as they suggested criminal behavior and unethical business practices.
• Assessment Under the Defamation Act 2009: The statutory provisions under sections 31 and 32 were pivotal. Section 31 mandated consideration of the nature and gravity of the allegations, means of publication, circulation extent, and any steps taken by the defendant to correct or apologize. Although the defendants’ posts were removed within a few days, their initial adverse impact was undeniable.
• Quantification of Economic Harm: While the company presented evidence of reduced sales figures following the publication of the reviews, the court was not persuaded that such evidence conclusively demonstrated long-term lost business directly attributable to the defamatory publications. Instead, the court focused on the reputational damage as inferred from Mr. Keogh’s evidence.
• Responsibility and Admission: The first-named defendant’s admission of responsibility for the four reviews was central to the judgment. His subsequent apology and explanation for the use of his wife’s name, while mitigating some of the aggressive tone, did not absolve him from the consequences of the defamation.

Potential Impact

The decision in Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Ltd v Manning & Anor has important implications for the realm of online defamation:

• Clarity in Damage Assessment: Future defamation disputes involving online reviews and social media are likely to be assessed using the structured framework referenced in this case. The categorization set out in Higgins and applied in Casey now finds further reinforcement, guiding courts in balancing the temporary nature of online posts against the enduring harm to reputation.
• Enhanced Accountability: The ruling reinforces the principle that even a brief period of online publication can result in substantial reputational damage, thereby encouraging individuals and entities to exercise caution before posting defamatory content.
• Encouragement to Settle: Given the clarity of the statutory guidance and the availability of an established compensation bracket for moderate defamation, future defendants might be more inclined to settle cases rather than face the reputational and financial consequences of protracted litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment involves several legal concepts that may appear intricate at first glance:

• Defamation per se: This means that the defamatory statement is considered inherently damaging, so the plaintiff does not need to prove that actual financial loss occurred. The court affirmed that a company can suffer reputational harm that is actionable without a direct quantification of monetary loss.
• General, Special, Aggravated, and Punitive Damages:
  • General Damages cover harm to reputation and emotional distress.
  • Special Damages relate to specific financial losses that are proven.
  • Aggravated Damages are awarded where the defendant's conduct worsened the effect of the defamation.
  • Punitive Damages serve as a deterrence against particularly malicious behavior.
  The court determined that while the company suffered general reputational harm, the circumstances did not justify an award of aggravated or punitive damages.
• Means and Enduring Nature of Publication: Although the defamatory posts were removed within a short period (ranging from 24 hours to 4 days), the court recognized that online publications have a potentially wide and lasting impact, especially given the ease with which information circulates on the internet.

Conclusion

The judgment in Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Ltd v Manning & Anor represents a significant precedent in the area of online defamation. It underscores the importance of adhering to a structured framework when assessing damages caused by defamatory online reviews. By meticulously referencing prior decisions and statutory provisions, the Court has clarified that even ephemeral online content can inflict sufficient harm to warrant a moderate damages award. The award of €40,000 not only compensates for the reputational damage but also serves as a cautionary signal to potential defamers about the consequences of their actions.

Ultimately, the decision promotes greater accountability in the online environment and reinforces the principle that the protection of reputation is a fundamental right—even for corporate entities. The reasoning followed in this case is likely to guide future disputes, ensuring a balanced approach between the transient nature of online content and the lasting impact it can have on a business’s reputation.