Cooney v Browne (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Henchy J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1985 |
| Neutral Citation | 1985 WJSC-SC 1873 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [1984 No. 303P] |
| Date | 31 July 1985 |
1985 WJSC-SC 1873
Finlay C.J.
Henchy J.
Griffin J.
Hederman J.
McCarthy J.
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis:
DEFAMATION
Libel
Defence - Particulars - Statement of claim reproducing alleged libel - Libel including statements of fact, opinion and comments - Statements of fact alleged to be true - Plaintiff entitled to further particulars of (a) which words in the alleged libel are facts the truth which will be proved and (b) what facts are relied on as supporting the factual statements made - Order made by Hamilton J. - (10/12/84) affirmed subject to variation - (66/85 - Supreme Court - 31/7/85).
|Cooney v. Brown|
PRACTICE
Pleadings
Particulars - Defence - Libel - Statement of claim reproducing alleged libel - Libel including statements of fact, opinion and comment - Statement of facts alleged to be true - plaintiff entitled to further particulars of (a) which words in alleged libel were facts and which would be proved and (b) what facts were relied on as supporting the factual statements made - Order of Hamilton J. - (10/12/84) affirmed subject to variation - (66/85 - Supreme Court - 31/7/85).
|Cooney v. Browne|
Citations:
OSBORNE V IRISH TIMES UNREP SUPREME 27.01.54
RSC O.19 r6
RSC O.19 r6(3)
SPEDDING V FITZPATRICK 38 CH 413
Judgment of Henchy J. [NEW DISS] delivered the 31 July 1985
The plaintiff is a former Minister for Justice and is the present Minister for Defence. On the 1st January 1984 there was published in The Sunday Tribune a lengthy article entitled "Lost in the Mists of Introspection". The article referred to a number of matters which were instanced as scandals in the public life of this State and alleged a connection between the plaintiff as Minister for Justice and at least some of those matters.
The plaintiff has issued proceedings in the High Court claiming damages for libel. A defence has been delivered by the first-named and second-named defendants, who are respectively the editor of the newspaper and the company that owns and publishes the newspaper.Among the matters pleaded in the defence is what is called a rolled-up plea. It is in the following terms:
"In so far as the words complained of consist of statements of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, and in so far as they consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comment made in good faith and without malice on the said facts which are matters of publicinterest."
The plaintiff served a notice for particulars in which he asked the defendants to state a)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allied Irish Banks Plc v AIG Euope Ltd
...v. Celbridge Spinning Co. Limited [1967] I.R. 1 at page 3. (d) Thus, as Henchy J. noted in the Supreme Court in Cooney v. Browne [1985] I.R. 185 at p. 191, where a pleading is so general or so imprecise that the other side cannot know what case he or she will have to meet at trial, furthe......
-
Meegan v Times Newspapers Ltd
...the s. 26 defence envisaged by the newspaper before bringing an application for discovery. As Henchy J. observed in Cooney v. Browne [1985] I.R. 185, 191 in the context of an application for particulars in a defamation action: 'Thus, where the pleading in question is so general or so impre......
-
Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) v PriceWaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)
...in advance, in broad outline the case he will have to meet at the trial….’ 12 This theme was taken up by Henchy J. in Cooney v. Browne [1985] I.R. 185, 191 a decision which remains, in many way, the leading Irish authority on the scope of particulars:- ‘Where the particulars are sought for ......
-
Mount Salus Residents' Owners Management Company Ltd by Guarantee v an Bord Pleanála and Others
...Also, Foley v. Environmental Protection Agency [2022] IEHC 470 §41 — “This cannot, in this Court's view, be fair.” 41 Cooney v Browne, [1985] IR 185. Also Armstrong v. Moffatt (t/a Ballina Medical Centre) & Irwin [2013] 1 I.R. 42 Casey v Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government [2......