Billionaire businessman Denis O’Brien has responded to claims by two lawyers that he was defamed by a press statement issued in response to reports about the concentration of media ownership in Ireland. The Court of Appeal has announced that the defense can be reasserted. Domination.
Mr O’Brien and his spokesperson James Morrissey are being sued by two of the four lawyers who co-authored a 2016 report commissioned by Sinn Féin senator Lynn Boylan, who was then a member of the House of Commons. has been done.
Mr Darragh Mackin and Mr Gavin Booth, both based in Northern Ireland, said a press statement issued by Mr Morrissey on Mr O’Brien’s behalf suggested they were working for and receiving payments from the IRA. The suit alleges that it was unprofessional and lacked integrity.
They claim they were defamed by a press release on 26 October 2016 that read: “Sinn Féin/IRA did indeed obtain the report they paid for.”
Defendants deny that the material defamed Plaintiffs or meant what Plaintiffs allege.
Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Morrissey, who once held large stakes in radio and print media companies, advanced the defense of truth and honest opinion, qualified privilege, and fair and rational publication on matters of public interest.
In October 2021, the high court reversed the plaintiffs’ various truth and honest opinion claims as part of their pretrial motions. The judge found that none of the defendant’s six meanings of truth and honest opinion met the relevant legal tests.
In Friday’s ruling, the appeals court allowed O’Brien and Morrissey to reinsert and amend most of those pleadings.
Speaking on behalf of a three-judge bench, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said the revocation of the defense of truth and honest opinion in defamation cases was an “exceptional order” with “far-reaching implications” for defendants. Stated.
He said the plaintiffs chose to base their lawsuit on a single excerpt from a lengthy press statement. They claimed different meanings of those words, including that they acted on behalf of the IRA, and the defendants also claimed other meanings, he said.
The defendants argue that the report was not an independent study, was neither balanced nor fair, and was designed to further the political agenda of Sinn Féin, which supported and continues to support the IRA. He claims to have continued links with the IRA.
Mr Justice Collins did not accept the claimant’s argument that the defendant had to insist on the truth of the claim that the claimant was connected to the IRA, or accept that it could not have a truthful defense.
If this argument were accepted, the judge said, the plaintiffs would be forcing the meaning of the words at issue on the defendants.
The possibility that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the words may ultimately be accepted by a jury should preclude the defendant from pleading for a different meaning or attempting to prove the truth of that meaning at this stage. That’s not the point, he said.
If the defendants want to rely on their attorneys’ claims that their reports are not “independent research,” they must provide adequate factual details on which to base their claims, the judge said.
This is especially true, he said, given that the plaintiff is a legal expert and the report clearly identifies itself as an independent study.
Mr Justice Collins disagreed with the High Court’s view that the defendant’s argument that the report was “prepared to advance Sinn Féin’s political agenda” was “unsustainable”.
However, defendants will need to provide further details to support their pleas, he said.
He found that two further meanings advanced by the defendants in relation to Sinn Féin’s alleged continuing links with the IRA could not be interpreted from the words complained of.
He said the IRA’s activities and its relationship with Sinn Féin were “irrelevant” in any acceptable sense.
He warned that the truth defense comes with risks, including increased damages if the plaintiffs win.
Justice Collins found that the honest opinion defense was not clearly or satisfactorily argued. He said the defendant must clearly state the factual allegations on which the opinion is based.
The judge stressed that his findings do not imply any judgment as to the merits of the defense or its chances of ultimate success, as this is a matter for the jury.
The court also made some changes to various orders of the High Court regarding disclosure of documents sought by both parties.
Mr Justice Collins said the report commissioned by Ms Boylan expressed “very serious concerns about the high concentration of media ownership in the Irish market and in particular the position of INM and Mr Denis O’Brien”.
It also stated that “Mr. O’Brien’s continued and regular threats of legal action against media outlets and journalists involved in reporting on and reporting on Mr. O’Brien’s activities, and the “chilling effect” of current defamation laws” are “serious.” ” He also emphasized his concerns.
Mr O’Brien, one of Ireland’s richest people, acquired a controlling stake in Communicorp, a company with a significant stake in Irish commercial radio, in 2016 and later owned Irish Independent Media. He held a large stake in Irish News and Media (INM). Sunday Independence.
He stepped away from Irish media after 30 years when Communicorp was sold to Bauer Media Audio in 2021, about two years after INM was sold to Mediahuis.