Casey v McMenamin (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is a businessman and former presidential candidate residing in County Donegal. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2023, the Plaintiff sought to assist Ukrainian refugees by converting a property he owned, Ludden House in County Donegal, into accommodation for women and children fleeing the conflict. Significant renovations were made to the property, and the Plaintiff publicly stated his intention to distribute any rental profits to the Government, the people of Donegal, and the people of Ukraine.

The Defendant, a political figure in Buncrana who opposes the presence of non-nationals in the area, posted on a public Facebook page in April 2023, alleging that the Plaintiff was involved in human trafficking and inhumane treatment of refugees by warehousing them in office cubicles for profit. The Plaintiff denies these allegations and claims the post is defamatory.

Following the defamatory post and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to remove it, the Plaintiff issued High Court proceedings in June 2023 seeking damages for defamation, including aggravated and exemplary damages, a correction under the Defamation Act 2009, an injunction restraining further publication of the defamatory material, and removal of the defamatory comments.

The Defendant did not enter an appearance or defend the proceedings. Judgment in default was entered against the Defendant in November 2023, with the matter set down for assessment of damages. The Defendant also evaded service of court orders, requiring alternative methods of service approved by the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statements made by the Defendant on social media were defamatory.
2. Whether the defamatory statements were true or false.
3. The appropriate assessment of damages for the defamatory statements.
4. Whether aggravated and punitive damages should be awarded due to the Defendant’s conduct.
5. The appropriateness of a court order for correction and injunction under the Defamation Act 2009.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s Facebook post falsely accused him of involvement in illegal human trafficking and inhumane treatment of refugees.
• The Plaintiff asserted that the accommodation was suitable, renovated to a high standard, and intended for women and children fleeing war, not unvetted persons.
• He maintained that any profits would be shared with the Government and affected communities, negating any suggestion of profiteering.
• The Plaintiff contended that the defamatory statements harmed his reputation and caused distress to him and his family.
• He sought damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, and injunctive relief to prevent further publication.

Appellee's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Defendant’s legal arguments, as the Defendant did not enter an appearance or defend the proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the facts surrounding the defamatory Facebook post and the Plaintiff’s intentions and actions. It found that:

• The individuals intended to be housed were vetted women and children fleeing war, not unvetted persons.
• The accommodation was renovated to a high standard and was not comparable to office cubicles.
• There was no intention to profit personally; any excess funds were to be shared with the Government and affected communities.
• The Defendant’s characterization of the Plaintiff’s conduct as human trafficking and inhumane was false and defamatory.
• The defamatory material was widely published on social media, with significant engagement and sharing.
• The Defendant ignored court orders to remove the defamatory posts, thereby aggravating the injury to the Plaintiff.
• The Defendant did not defend the proceedings and evaded service, which the court considered contemptuous conduct.

The court also considered the impact of the defamatory statements on the Plaintiff’s reputation and personal distress, including the effect on his family. The court applied the statutory considerations under Sections 30, 31, and 32 of the Defamation Act 2009, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the extent of publication, the Plaintiff’s reputation, and the Defendant’s failure to remediate the harm.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF and award damages as follows:

• General damages in the sum of €120,000, reflecting the medium range of defamation harm and significant impact on the Plaintiff.
• Aggravated damages of €20,000 due to the Defendant’s refusal to remove defamatory posts despite court orders and failure to engage with the proceedings.
• An order under Section 30 of the Defamation Act 2009 for correction and injunction restraining further publication of the defamatory material.

The court emphasized that the Defendant’s conduct, including evasion of service and contempt of court, justified the aggravated damages. No evidence linked the Defendant to the fire at the property, and the Defendant’s attempts to publicize the fire were not found to mitigate the defamatory nature of his statements.

This decision directly resolves the parties’ dispute by awarding damages to the Plaintiff and ordering the removal of defamatory material. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent beyond applying existing defamation principles and statutory provisions.