Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers Ltd & ors Rogers v Sunday Newspapers Ltd & ors : Judgments & Determinations : Courts Service of Ireland

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals concern the jurisdiction of the Court to strike out part of a plaintiff's claim for defamation on the grounds that pursuing the claim constitutes an abuse of process. The plaintiffs, Plaintiff A, a former member of the national police force who served in the witness protection programme and retired with exemplary service, and Plaintiff B, a psychotherapist who provided professional services to the police force, brought defamation proceedings against Company A and its employees, Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C.

The claims relate to allegedly defamatory statements published by Defendant C on 28 March 2014 to a retired senior police officer and statements contained in a newspaper article published by Company A on 30 March 2014, including further online publication of that article.

The defendants sought to strike out the paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statements of claim relating to the statements made to the retired officer on the grounds of abuse of process and alternatively on the basis that those paragraphs contained unnecessary pleas. The High Court judge dismissed the strike out applications, holding that pursuing those claims was not an abuse of process.

The defendants appealed the High Court decision, relying principally on the English Court of Appeal judgment in Jameel (Yousef) v. Dow Jones & Co. Inc., which addresses striking out libel claims as abuse of process where the probable benefit to the plaintiff is minimal and disproportionate to the costs and use of court resources.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to strike out part of a defamation claim as an abuse of process where the probable benefit to the plaintiff is minimal and disproportionate to the costs and use of court time.
2. Whether the English approach in Jameel to striking out libel claims as an abuse of process should be adopted in this jurisdiction.
3. Whether the claims relating to the alleged defamatory statements published to a single individual on 28 March 2014 constitute an abuse of process.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants contended that the High Court erred in refusing to strike out the relevant paragraphs of the statements of claim as an abuse of process.
• They relied on the English Court of Appeal decision in Jameel and the High Court judgment in McSorley v. O'Mahony to support the proposition that defamation claims should be struck out if the probable benefit to the plaintiff is minimal and disproportionate to the costs and judicial resources involved.
• The appellants emphasized that the publication to the retired officer was to one person only and that the probable benefit to the plaintiffs was minimal, thus constituting an abuse of process.
• They sought an order striking out the paragraphs relating to the 28 March 2014 publication on the grounds of abuse of process but did not object to the continuation of the remainder of the claims.

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents argued that each occasion of alleged defamation, even if similar and involving publication to one person only, entitled them to litigate and have their day in court.
• They contended that the English approach in Jameel was not good law in this jurisdiction and that the constitutional right of access to the courts should not be limited by a cost-benefit analysis as applied in England.
• The respondents maintained that the claims relating to the 28 March 2014 publication were valid distinct claims for defamation under the Defamation Act 2009 and should not be struck out.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by outlining the nature of the claims under the Defamation Act 2009, noting that defamation includes publication to one or more persons and is actionable without proof of special damage. It was undisputed that the plaintiffs had pleaded claims for defamation in respect of statements published to the retired officer on 28 March 2014 and in the newspaper article on 30 March 2014.

The Court considered the appellants' reliance on the English Jameel principle, which permits striking out libel claims as abuse of process where the probable benefit to the plaintiff is minimal and disproportionate to the costs and court resources. The Court observed that the English approach is influenced by the overriding objective of the English Civil Procedure Rules and the Human Rights Act 1998, neither of which are directly applicable in Ireland.

The Court examined established Irish principles on abuse of process, emphasizing the constitutional right of access to courts, which may be restricted only in clear cases of abuse such as vexatious or frivolous litigation or where the plaintiff gains no benefit. The Court distinguished the English cost-benefit approach, holding that Irish courts will only strike out claims where the plaintiff can obtain no tangible benefit from proceeding.

The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the publication to one person only should lead to striking out, affirming that such publication can constitute defamation under the statute. The Court agreed with the trial judge that a person defamed on two occasions is entitled to litigate both claims, even if similar or involving a single individual.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appellants had not established that the claims relating to the 28 March 2014 publication would yield no benefit to the plaintiffs, and therefore pursuing those claims was not an abuse of process.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision is to DISMISS THE APPEALS.

The direct effect is that the plaintiffs are entitled to continue pursuing their defamation claims relating to the statements published on 28 March 2014, alongside their other claims. The Court declined to adopt the English Jameel approach to striking out defamation claims on proportionality grounds, thereby preserving the constitutional right of access to courts in defamation proceedings in this jurisdiction. No new precedent altering the existing abuse of process test was established beyond reaffirming the requirement that a claim be struck out only where the plaintiff gains no tangible benefit.