McGrath v Independent Newspaper (Ireland) Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Gilligan
Judgment Date21 April 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] IEHC 67
Docket NumberRECORD NO. 10137P/2002
CourtHigh Court
Date21 April 2004

[2004] IEHC 67

THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. 10137P/2002
McGARTH v. INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRL) LTD
PATRICK McGARTH
PLAINTIFF

AND

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
DEFENDANTS

Citations:

CHARLESTON & ANOR V NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR 1995 2 AC 65

CONLON V TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD 1995 2 ILRM 76

Synopsis:

- [2004] 2 IR 425

Facts: the plaintiff was a fitter who acted as a trade union representative and alleged that he enjoyed the trust and confidence of his fellow workers who understood him to be in similar economic circumstances as themselves. The defendant published a photo of the plaintiff above the words “businessman Pat McGrath stands to lose thousands after investing £50,000 in Eircom”. The plaintiff pleaded by way of innuendo that the words meant that he had dishonestly concealed from his co-workers his activities as a businessman and personal wealth and that he was not a committed trade unionist. On seeing the article, he alleged that he contacted the defendant and requested an apology and correction. He alleged that the defendant refused to apologise and without further consultation, published a correction consisting of a photo of “CIE tradesman Pat McGrath who was described as a businessman in Friday’s [edition] borrowed to invest £9,600 in Eircom shares and not £50,000 as reported” which appeared under a heading entitled “big business linked to family of terrorist”. The plaintiff alleged that the correction statement, in that context, implied that the he was involved in terrorism and criminality and constituted a second libel. The defendant contended that the plaintiff sought to isolate the correction from the text of an unrelated article to which the heading referred, namely various companies doing business with the family of Osama Bin Laden. The High Court (Kearns J), on application to it by the defendant, directed that the following be tried as preliminary issues: whether the correction operated as an accord and satisfaction of the initial libel alleged by the plaintiff, and; whether that article itself was capable of bearing any of the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiff.

Held by Gilligan J in holding that the correction published by the defendant did not operate as an accord and satisfaction of the initial cause alleged that the onus of proof as to the questions raised as preliminary issues rested on the defendant as moving party. That the central requirements as to a valid compromise were that consideration existed, that an agreement could be identified which was complete and certain and that parties intended to create legal relations. As the parties were not ad idem, the defendant had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was complete and certain agreement as to the exact terms of the apology requested.

In holding that the published correction complained of was not capable of bearing any of the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiff that the correct criterion to be applied was the natural meaning which the title, the article, the accompanying photograph and the caption underneath, considered in totality as published, would convey to the mind of the ordinary, reasonable, fair-minded reader.

Reporter: P.C.

1

Judgment of Mr. Justice Gilligan delivered on the 21st day of April, 2004 .

2

The plaintiff in these proceedings is a fitter employed by CIE. The defendants are the publishers printers and proprietors of the Evening Herald newspaper.

3

On or about 21 st September 2001 the defendants caused to be printed and published in their edition of the Evening Herald a photograph of the plaintiff above an article entitled "Eircom investors still hold out for better bid" The photograph of the plaintiff contained a caption which stated "losses; businessman Pat McGarth stands to lose thousands after investing £50,000 in Eircom."

4

The plaintiff alleges that he is not in fact a business man but is employed as a fitter with Irish Rail, has no personal wealth and in fact borrowed money to invest in Eircom shares. In addition the plaintiff said that he has been a trade union shop steward for many years and enjoyed the trust and confidence of his fellow workers who understood him to be in similar economic circumstances to themselves.

5

The plaintiff pleads by way of innuendo arising from this publication of the 21 st September 2001 that the words published meant and were understood to mean;

6

(a) the plaintiff had dishonestly concealed from his co-workers his activities as a business man and personal wealth.

7

(b) the plaintiff had cynically and dishonestly represented himself to his co-workers as being a committed trade unionist with no conflicting interest.

8

(c) the plaintiff had dishonestly pretended to his co-workers that he was in the same economic circumstances as them.

9

(d) the plaintiff had wilfully misled his co-workers into supporting him as a trade union representative.

10

The plaintiff alleges that upon becoming aware of the publication he immediately contacted the defendants and requested them to publish an apology and correction. He says the defendants refused to apologise and without further consultation with the plaintiff and without the plaintiffs consent published on the 25 th September 2001 a correction which consisted of a photograph of "CIE tradesman Pat McGarth who was described as a business man in Friday's Your Money borrowed to invest £9,600 in Eircom shares not £50,000 as reported. "The photograph and correction statement were published under the heading "big business linked to family of terrorist" and the plaintiff alleges that no attempt was made by the defendants to distance or distinguish the photograph of himself from the contents of the article.

11

The plaintiff alleges that by virtue of the placing of the photograph and the correction statement in conjunction with the article in the Evening Herald of 25 th September 2001 the contents thereof in their natural and ordinary meaning meant or were understood to mean that the plaintiff

12

1. was a terrorist

13

2. was a criminal

14

3. had ties with known and/or reputed terrorist organisations

15

4. would conduct himself in such a manner as to invite a criminal prosecution for involvement in terrorist activities

16

5. was involved in big business for the purpose of raising money to fond terrorist activities

17

6. was part of a family of terrorists

18

7. would see no reason to sever ties with terrorist organisations

19

8. would condone the commission of terrorist activity in any manner

20

9. was one of a family of terrorists.

21

The plaintiff contends that he has suffered severe distress embarrassment loss damage and expense and has also been seriously injured in his character credit and reputation and has been brought into public scandal odium and contempt. In particular the plaintiff was involved in elections within Irish Rail seeking a position as a worker director on the board of Irish Rail and the actions of the defendant was a contributory factor in the plaintiff losing the aforesaid elections.

22

The defendants brought a notice of motion dated 21 st January 2003 seeking the trial of a number of preliminary issues and Kearns J. on 3rd March 2003 directed that the following issues be tried before a judge sitting alone;

23

1. Whether or not the photograph and correction published by the defendant in the Evening Herald newspapers on 25 th September 2001 operated as an accord and satisfaction of the cause of action alleged in the statement of claim herein in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof so that it has been discharged.

24

2. Whether the article complained of in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim is capable of bearing any of the defamatory meanings pleaded in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim.

25

In points of claim the defendants claim firstly that the photograph and correction published by the defendant in the Evening Herald newspaper on 25 th September 2001 operated as an accord and satisfaction of the cause of action alleged in the statement of claim herein at paragraphs 3,4 and 5 thereof so that it has been discharged. The defendants allege that on or about the 24 th September 2001 an agreement was reached between the plaintiff and Frank Coughlan, Associate Editor of the Evening Herald, that in consideration of the defendant causing to be printed and published a photograph of the plaintiff on the same page and in the same position as a photograph and caption which had been published in the Evening Herald on 21 st September 2001 together with an agreed correction which was to read as follows "Correction; CIE tradesman Pat McGarth who was described as business man in Friday's Your Money borrowed to invest £9,600 in Eircom shares, not £50,000 as reported" The plaintiff would accept such correction and publication in full satisfaction and in discharge of his cause of action if any which was and is denied in respect of the said article of 21 stSeptember 2001.

26

The plaintiff contends that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Darragh Mackin v Denis O'Brien and James Morrissey
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ...justification of a lesser meaning than that pleaded in the statement of claim.” 36 In McGarth v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited [2004] IEHC 67, Mr. Justice Gilligan stated that:- “whether the words are capable of a defamatory meaning the court is obliged to construe the words acco......
  • Joanna Jordan v Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 22 Noviembre 2013
    ...v Minister for Children [2012] IESC 53, [2012] 2 IR 726; Hanafin v Minister for the Environment [1996] 2 IR 321; Sinnott v Martin [2004] IEHC 67, [2004] IEHC 136, [2004] 1 IR 121; Dunne v Minister for the Environment [2008] 2 IR 775 and McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10 conside......
  • Thomas Talbot v Hermitage Golf Club and Others
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 9 Octubre 2014
    ...v SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LTD 2012 1 ILRM 260 2011/24/6186 2011 IEHC 331 MCGARTH v INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRL) LTD 2004 2 IR 425 2004/34/7876 2004 IEHC 67 HENWOOD v HARRISON 1871-72 7 LR CP 606 WRIGHT v WOODGATE 150 ER 244 1835 2 CR M & R 573 HARRIS v ARNOTT 1890 26 LR IR 55 HORROCKS v LOWE 1975......

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