Doyle v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKeane C.J.
Judgment Date02 November 2001
Neutral Citation2001 WJSC-SC 1462
Docket Number[S.C. No. 22 of 2001]
CourtSupreme Court
Date02 November 2001
DOYLE v. INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRL) LTD & ORS
DOYLE
-V-
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED ANDORS.

2001 WJSC-SC 1462

22/01

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

DEFAMATION

Libel

Litigation - Plea of justification - Whether particulars should be delivered - Whether names of specific players should be given (22/2001 - Supreme Court - 2/11/01)

Doyle v Independent Newspapers - [2001] 4 IR 594

The plaintiff had initiated proceedings against the defendant for libel over an article published by them which the plaintiff alleged was defamatory. The article had included the statement that the plaintiff had "become ostracised by the decision making core among the players, nobody was making a realistic case for him to stay." The defendant pleaded that the words complained of were true in substance. The plaintiff sought particulars relating to the senior players who had allegedly lost confidence in him while coaching the Irish team. The defendant refused to deliver the particulars in question arguing that it was a matter for evidence. The plaintiff brought a motion to the High Court requiring the defendants to answer the particulars. Mr. Justice Quirke in the High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to know who these senior players were and ordered that the plaintiff be provided with full and detailed particulars of the names of the senior players. In addition it was ordered that particulars be delivered in relation to the manner he was ostracised. The defendant appealed against the order.

Held by the Chief Justice, delivering the sole judgment, in allowing the appeal. The order in relation to the manner in which the plaintiff had been ostracised had not been appealed against and the defendant must comply with that order. However given that a relatively specific allegation was made the pleadings could not be described as so general or imprecise that the plaintiff did not know the case he would have to meet. This was not a case where a party should be ordered to say precisely what witnesses he was going to call. The plaintiff had not established that the order sought was necessary in order for him to meet the case . The High Court judge was wrong in principle in requiring the specific names of players to be given. The order of the High Court would be discharged.

Citations:

COONEY V BROWNE 1985 IR 185

1

Keane C.J.delivered the 2nd day of November, 2001.

2

This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court, (Mr. Justice Quirke) in which he ordered certain particulars to be delivered which the defendants had refused to deliver. The action arises out of the publication in the first named defendant newspaper, Sunday Independent, of an article concerning Irish rugby in the course of which the person being interviewed in the article said of and concerning theplaintiff

3

"If you want to look at the track records then Mick Doyle, who is Ireland's most successful coach of that period couldn't manage to break even and within two seasons of winning a triple crown in 1985 he has become ostracised by the decision making coreamong the players, nobody was making a realistic case for him tostay".

4

The plaintiff has instituted proceedings for libel against the defendants because he says the article is understood to refer to him and was defamatory of his because among other things it indicated that he was not only a very poor coach and indifferent in the performance of his task as a coach, but that he was so bad that he had been shunned by the members of the team and shunned by leading members of the team and that is in broad terms, it is particularised in considerably more detail in the statement of claim, but that in broad terms is what is alleged to be the defamatory nature of the passage concerned.

5

The defence was delivered in the proceedings in the course of which a number of defences were raised, but specifically it was pleaded that the words contained of were true in substance and in fact, a plea in other words of justification. The solicitors for the plaintiff then sought particulars and the nature of these particulars as sought are important given the nature of the appeal before us today. The first particulars sought were in respect of paragraph three of the defence, that is the plea of justification, "please provide full and detailed particulars of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Brendan Byrne and Paul Byrne v Radio Telefís Éireann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 3 Marzo 2006
    ...ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6 DE HAES & GIJSELS v BELGIUM 1997 25 EHRR 1 DOYLE v INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRL) LTD & ORS 2001 4 IR 594 MOORE v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION HUNT SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES 5.7.1985 SIMS v WRAM 1984 1 NSWLR 317 JAMEEL v DOW JONES & ......
  • Ryanair Ltd v Goss
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 15 Noviembre 2016
    ...before the judge.’ 15 Another example is supplied by the Supreme Court's decision in Doyle v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd. [2001] 4 I.R. 594. Here the plaintiff, who was a former coach of the Irish rugby team, sued for defamation in respect of a newspaper article which alleged that......
  • Walsh v Harrison
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 Julio 2002
    ...O'SULLIVAN 13.3.1998 1998/14/4976 ATKINSON V FITZWALTER 1987 1 WLR 201 COONEY V BROWNE 1985 ILRM 675 DOYLE V INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS 2001 4 IR 594 2001/6/1462 Synopsis: - [2003] 2 ILRM 161 The plaintiff had issued proceedings against the defendant seeking damages for slander and malicious f......
  • Burke v Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 10 Diciembre 2010
    ...IR 185; Mahon v Celbridge Spinning Co Ltd [1967] 1 IR 1; McGee v O'Reilly [1996] 2 IR 229; Doyle v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd [2001] 4 IR 594 applied - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 19 - Constitution of Ireland 1973, articles 34 and 40 - Application dismissed (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT