Connolly v Raidió Teilifís Éireann

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1991
• Date: 29 July 1991
• Docket Number: [1991 No. 10069P]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1991 No. 10069P]

Connolly v. R.T.E.

Gerardine Connolly

Plaintiff

and

Radio Telefís Éireann éireann

Defendant

Case mentioned in this report:—

Campus Oil v. Minister for Industry and Energy (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88; [1984] I.L.R.M. 45.

Injunction - Interlocutory - Libel - Television broadcast - Defence of no libel - Adequacy of damages - Balance of convenience - Whether special considerations in defamation - Jury.

Libel - Interlocutory injunction - Criteria - Whether distinct in defamation actions - Jury.

Notice of Motion.

The facts are summarised in the headnote and are set out in the judgment of Carroll J., post.

A plenary summons was issued on the 9th July, 1991, claiming aggravated damages for libel and seeking injunctions. The plaintiff's affidavit sworn on the 16th July grounding the motion seeking an interlocutory injunction showed that the material had originally been broadcast on the defendant's six o'clock news on the 19th December, 1990, and on further news programmes on the 24th December, 1990, (twice) and on the 31st May, 1991. She recalled being stopped by a garda at a checkpoint on the Stillorgan Road, County Dublin and asked to show him the contents of the boot of her car and that there was no question of drink consumption at all throughout the conversation with the garda. The defendant had filmed her on this occasion. She deposed further that there were only three models of the same colour as the Cabriolet car she was driving in the jurisdiction. The affidavit exhibited letters written by the plaintiff's solicitors on the 24th December, 1990, and again immediately prior to issue of the plenary summons calling on the defendant to cease further broadcasts and requesting an undertaking to that effect. The defendant's affidavit was sworn by one Charles Bird and argued, that the plaintiff was not actually identified, the footage being too indistinct, and that it would be iniquitous for such legitimate broadcasting to be impeded. The defendant was accordingly not prepared to give the undertaking demanded. The motion was heard on the the 29th July, 1991, and the judgment post represents the stenographer's note of the ex tempore judgment.

In a television broadcast to highlight a Christmas police clampdown on drunk driving offences the plaintiff's distinctive motor car appeared on the footage, intercut with voiceovers of people submitting to breathalyser testing. The broadcast was repeated notwithstanding an undertaking...