Tracey v Independent Star Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESC 67
• Date: 30 July 2019
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [Supreme Court Record No. 455/2011] [High Court Record No. 2008/11102P]

BETWEEN:

KEVIN TRACEY

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

V.

INDEPENDENT STAR LIMITED

AND

GERARD COLLERAN

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019] IESC 67

MacMenamin J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Peart J.

[Supreme Court Record No. 455/2011]

[Court of Appeal Record No. 2014/326]

[High Court Record No. 2008/11102P]

THE SUPREME COURT

High Court order – Re-hearing – Article – Appellant seeking to appeal against High Court order – Whether the High Court’s order should stand

Facts: An allegedly defamatory article was published by the respondents, Independent Star Ltd and Mr Colleran, on the 17th September, 2004. The appellant, Mr Tracey, laid emphasis on the fact that the heading of the article read “Man convicted over ball row assault”, and in the body of the report, wherein it was stated that the appellant was yesterday “convicted of assault [a neighbour]”. Counsel on behalf of the respondents pointed out that the proceedings were not issued until the 23rd December, 2008, and not served until the 18th December, 2009, some five years after the publication of the article. The oral and written submissions were careful and detailed. They fully set out relevant material, quoting Gatley on Libel & Slander, 12th Edition. They drew the necessary distinction between an application under Order 19, Rule 28, of the Rules of the Superior Courts, and the inherent jurisdiction to strike out proceedings. Counsel also drew attention to authorities in this area, such as Keohane v Hynes [2014] IESC 66, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ewing v Ireland & Others [2013] IESC 44. Counsel submitted that the proceedings were not complex, and that by contrast to Moylist Construction Ltd v Doheny [2016] 2 IR 283, the proceedings were not “of such complexity as would have prevented the High Court from making a determination that the proceedings were bound to fail”.

Held by the Supreme Court (MacMenamin J) that, while counsel had made his arguments clearly and persuasively, the observations regarding the balance of rights made in Tracey v Irish Times Limited & Others, High Court Record No. 2008/11101P, Supreme Court Record No. 454/2011 were likewise applicable. MacMenamin J was not persuaded that there was any factor in this case which would persuade the Court that it should depart from the general form of order made in the Irish Times judgment, and the observations contained therein.

MacMenamin J held that he would allow the appeal and remit the motion for rehearing in the High Court.

Appeal allowed.

Judgment of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 30th...