Ganley and Another v Cable News Network Incorporated and Others; Ganley and Another v Cable News Network Incorporated and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Denis McDonald
• Judgment Date: 13 March 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IECA 33
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal Record Numbers: 2025/101 & 2025/99

Between/

Declan Ganley and Rivada Networks Limited

Plaintiffs/Respondents

and

Cable News Network Inc., Cable News International Limited and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Limited

Defendants/Appellants

[2026] IECA 33

Faherty J.

Butler J.

McDonald J.

Court of Appeal Record Numbers: 2025/101 & 2025/99

High Court Record Number: 2021/1110P

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Service out of jurisdiction – No reasonable cause of action – Bound to fail – Appellants seeking an order setting aside service of notice of the plenary summons on them out of the jurisdiction – Whether the claims made against the appellants were bound to fail

Facts: There were two appeals before the Court of Appeal in respect of orders made by the High Court (Simons J) on 25 February 2025. In the first appeal, all of the defendants, Cable News Network Inc., Cable News International Ltd (CNIL) and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd (Turner), were appellants. In the second appeal, the second and third defendants were the sole appellants. The first appeal related to the refusal by the High Court of the defendants’ application for an order pursuant to O. 12, r. 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) setting aside service of notice of the plenary summons on the defendants out of the jurisdiction. That application was made on the ground that Ireland was not the appropriate forum for the hearing of the litigation and that, in fact, the more appropriate jurisdiction was the United States of America. The second appeal related to the refusal by the High Court of the application brought by CNIL and Turner under O. 19, r. 28 RSC, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking to dismiss the proceedings either as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or on the grounds that the claims made against them were bound to fail.

Held by McDonald J that it is clear from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v Quinn [2016] 3 I.R. 197 (the IBRC case) that, in considering whether there is a forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Ireland, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the competing factors that point towards the respective fora in issue. Weighing the factors raised by the parties, he came to the conclusion that Ireland was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum for the hearing and determination of the claims of the plaintiffs/respondents, Mr Ganley and Rivada Networks Ltd, against the defendants. That seemed to him to be so irrespective of who bore the burden of proof. In the circumstances, he found it unnecessary to consider the second issue identified in the IBRC case, namely whether justice demands that the proceedings should be tried in Ireland’s jurisdiction; as Clarke J made clear, that issue only arises if it is determined that a foreign court is clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum than Ireland. McDonald J held that it was unnecessary to consider whether the High Court was correct in holding that it would be unjust to stay the proceedings on the basis set out in para. 37 of the judgment of Simons J namely that it would result in the plaintiffs “who are unblameworthy, being denied access to the courts in either jurisdiction.” McDonald J held that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that Ireland was the most appropriate forum for the hearing of the plaintiffs’ claim.

McDonald J held that the defendants had not shown that this was a sufficiently clear case to allow a court to form the view, at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings, that the plaintiffs’ claims against CNIL and Turner were bound to fail. He was satisfied that the High Court judge was correct to refuse the application by CNIL and Turner to strike out the proceedings as against them. McDonald J dismissed the appeal in relation to the decision to that effect.

Appeals dismissed.

NO REDACTIONS NEEDED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Denis McDonald delivered on 13 ^th March 2026

Introduction

1 . There are two appeals before the Court in respect of orders made by the High Court (Simons J.) on 25 ^th February 2025. In the first appeal, all of the defendants are appellants. In the second appeal, the second and third defendants are the sole appellants. The first appeal relates to the refusal by the High Court of the defendants' application for an order pursuant to O. 12, r. 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts ( “RSC”) setting aside service of notice of the plenary summons on the defendants out of the jurisdiction. That application was made on the ground that Ireland is not the appropriate forum for the hearing of this litigation and that, in fact, the more appropriate jurisdiction for the hearing of the plaintiffs' case is the United States of America. While the defendants argue that the litigation could be heard in a number of U.S. States, they have identified Washington D.C. as the most appropriate forum. A challenge to jurisdiction on such grounds is often characterised by reference to the Latin tag, forum non conveniens. For the reasons discussed in some detail below, I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that Ireland is the most appropriate forum for the hearing of the plaintiffs' claim.

2 . The second appeal relates to the refusal by the High Court of the application brought by the second and third named defendants under O. 19, r. 28, RSC, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking to dismiss these proceedings either as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or on the grounds that the claims made against the second and third defendants are bound to fail. For the reasons discussed below, I have concluded that this appeal should also be dismissed. It is not clear at this stage of the proceedings that the claims against the second and third defendants are bound to fail.

The parties

3 . In order to understand the issues which arise on this appeal, it is necessary to briefly describe the parties and the nature of the claim made by the plaintiffs/respondents in these proceedings. The first plaintiff ( “Mr. Ganley”) is a well-known businessperson but he is also widely known outside the business community in Ireland as a result of his prominent role in a number of Irish referendum campaigns including the campaign in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon. The second plaintiff (“ Rivada Ireland”) was established in 2005 by Mr. Ganley. It is an Irish subsidiary of Rivada Networks Inc., a company incorporated in the United States which I will refer to as “the US parent company”. Mr. Ganley says that the US parent company trades under the name “Rivada Networks” in that jurisdiction. Mr. Ganley is the Chief Executive Officer ( “CEO”) of both entities. According to Mr. Ganley, Rivada Ireland functions as the Irish office of the US parent company. Mr. Ganley also says that the US parent company, Rivada Ireland, and a second subsidiary of the US parent, Rivada Networks LLC (which is also incorporated in the United States) provide communication services and operate under the direction of Mr. Ganley and their respective boards of directors. Mr. Ganley further says that these Rivada entities all operate as “Rivada Networks” in the various jurisdictions in which they carry on business.

4 . The first defendant ( “CNN”) is incorporated in the United States and has its registered office and headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. It is an international cable news network and media company. It owns and operates numerous news platforms and services including the CNN and CNN International news channels. The second defendant (“CNIL”) is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom with its registered office in London. It is an indirect subsidiary of CNN. The third defendant ( “Turner”) is a private limited company which is also incorporated in the United Kingdom with its registered office in London. According to the evidence before the court, Turner is an affiliate, but not a subsidiary of CNN and both companies have the same ultimate owner (Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.).

The plaintiffs' claim

5 . The plaintiffs complain that on 20 ^th October 2020 the defendants defamed the plaintiffs in the course of two publications, the first comprising a broadcast on the CNN International news channel on that date and the second in an article published on the CNN.com website on the same day. The defendants accept that the article was published in Ireland for the purposes of the Defamation Act 2009 ( “the 2009 Act”) because it appeared on the website which is available in Ireland and because it was published on the CNN International television channel which is also available in Ireland. For the purposes of this judgment, it is unnecessary to set out the full terms of either the broadcast in question or the article in question. It is sufficient to note that it is the plaintiffs' case that the broadcast and article suggest that the plaintiffs have initiated a corrupt process to obtain a contract to lease the US Department of Defence's mid-band spectrum in circumstances which are designed to preclude a competitive bidding process for this opportunity. The plaintiffs claim that the publications directly identified the trading name of Rivada Ireland namely, “Rivada Networks” and that they also indirectly identified Mr. Ganley who the plaintiffs maintain is clearly identifiable by any reasonable reader or viewer in Ireland who either observed the broadcast or read the on-line article. In para. 11 of their statement of claim, they contend that Mr. Ganley has a high profile in this jurisdiction and that his identity is synonymous with that of Rivada Ireland. The plaintiffs also claim that, subsequent to the original publications on 20 ^th October 2020, there were a number of re-publications by third parties which served to exacerbate the damage caused to the plaintiffs and which the plaintiffs allege were foreseeable to the defendants. These include a number of social...