Looney v Bank of Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-HC 1616
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 3913P],No 3913P 1994
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1996

LOONEY v. BANK OF IRELAND

BETWEEN

NOEL LOONEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF BANK OF IRELAND AND BREDA MOREY

DEFENDANTS

1996 WJSC-HC 1616

No 3913P 1994

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Conflict - Resolution - Courts - Function - Defamation - Vindication of plaintiff's good name - Right of witness to freedom of expression - Allegation that libel published in affidavit sworn by witness - Absolute privilege attached to material in affidavit - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 19, r. 28 - (1994/3913 P - Murphy J. - 3/11/95) - [1996] 1 I.R. 157

|Looney v. Bank of Ireland|

DEFAMATION

Libel

Affidavit - Contents - Deponent - Witness - Allegation of defamatory matter in affidavit sworn by witness in course of litigation - Absolute privilege for such publication - Averments in affidavit sufficiently connected with issues in the litigation - Resolution of conflict between personal rights - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 19, r. 28 - (1994/3913 P - Murphy J. - 3/11/95) - [1996] 1 I.R. 157

|Looney v. Bank of Ireland|

PRACTICE

Action

Dismissal - Ground - Cause - Absence - Damages claimed for defamation - Allegation of defamatory matter in affidavit sworn by witness in course of litigation - Absolute privilege for such publication - Averments in affidavit sufficiently connected with issues in the litigation - Resolution of conflict between personal rights - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 19, r. 28 - (1994/3913 P - Murphy J. - 3/11/95) - [1996] 1 I.R. 157

|Looney v. Bank of Ireland|

EVIDENCE

Privilege

Affidavit - Contents - Libel - Allegation - Deponent witness - Damages for libel claimed by plaintiff - Right of witness to freedom of expression - Absolute privilege attached to material in affidavit - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 19, r. 28 - (1994/3913 P - Murphy J. - 3/11/95) - [1996] 1 I.R. 157

|Looney v. Bank of Ireland|

Citations:

RSC O.19 r28

RSC O.19 r18

BANK OF IRELAND V MURPHY (UNIDENTIFIED)

KENNEDY V HILLIARD (1861) 10 ICLR 195

1 Ex tempore Judgment delivered on the 3rd November, 1995. by Mr. Justice Murphy

2 This is a motion by the Defendants, that is to say, the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland and Breda Morey in which an Order is claimed against the Plaintiff, Noel Looney, pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts that the statement of claim in these proceedings be struck out on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous and vexatious and an Order pursuant to Order 19 Rule 18 aforesaid that the Plaintiff's claim herein be dismissed accordingly.

3 The Plaintiff, Mr. Looney's, claim in this matter in fact arises out of earlier proceedings in which the Bank of Ireland was Plaintiff and a Mr. Cornelius Murphy and Josephine Murphy were Defendants (Record No. 1992 No. 781S C5). In the earlier action which appears to have been a mortgage suit brought by the Bank of Ireland against Cornelius and Josephine Murphy, various motions had been brought with a view to obtaining possession of the premises from the Defendant Murphys. In the course of those proceedings, an Affidavit was sworn by Breda Morey who is a Defendant in the present action. In one of the Affidavits sworn by her on the 2nd day of May, 1995 and filed on the 5th day of May of that year she said at paragraph 3 thereof and I quote it in full as follows (indeed I quote by reference to an Affidavit sworn by her subsequently) but the quotation is as follows:-

"Later that same day, the 10th November, 1993, I received a telephone call from an auctioneer who I knew. He told me he had Mr. Murphy and also a Mr. Looney from the Family Farm Home Protection Society with him. He said that Mr. Murphy was in a distressed state and that it would not be safe for me to meet him and I was to avoid them at all costs. He told me that they were repeating my name and seemed to be threatening me and claiming I had broken into Mr. Murphy's premises and that any further intervention would be met with great resistance and that I was to watch out".

4 That was, as I say, paragraph 3 of the Affidavit sworn by Ms. Breda Morey on the 2nd May, 1995.

5 In the present proceedings, the Plaintiff, Mr. Looney, claimed damages against the Bank and Ms. Morey for damages for the libel and defamation published in the Affidavit or Affidavits sworn by Ms. Morey in the earlier proceedings against the Murphys.

6 The basis of the present motion is that such an action cannot be sustained because the statement made by the Ms. Morey in her Affidavit, whether true or false, enjoys absolute privilege. That is the contention on behalf of the Applicant, the Defendants in the present case. There is no doubt that this has always been regarded as the law in this country. One may take one brief sentence confirming that proposition from Kennedy & Hilliard reported in Irish Common Law Reports, Volume 10, 1861, page 195 from the judgment of the Chief Baron Piggott at the end of page 200 where he says:-

"I take the following propositions to be the points with which they deal to state correctly the law in reference to immunity on the one hand and liability on the other hand of a party making a false and defamatory imputation written or spoken to the injury of...