Latest news with #Defamation
Irish Times
17-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
The law is deeply flawed when a retailer who asks a customer for ID can be sued for defamation
The Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 reaches Seanad third stage on Thursday at 11.45am. High Noon. So far, this deeply flawed Bill has sailed through the Dáil and Seanad, unperturbed by anything other than a few TDs and senators mourning the ending of jury trials for defamation. The fact that the vast majority of defamation litigation takes place in the Circuit Court without juries has so far escaped notice in the Oireachtas. So has the fact that Ireland has a higher number of defamation cases than England and Wales combined. In 2023, courts in England and Wales handled 250 defamation cases; Ireland had 360. That means Ireland has a defamation litigation rate 19 times higher than England and Wales on a per-capita basis. This is because our laws encourage litigation, not resolution. READ MORE Retailers, in particular, are being hit hard. Did you know that asking a customer at an off-licence for ID can be framed as a defamatory statement? Or asking for a till receipt? Or quietly refusing to accept a €50 that failed a counterfeit check? All have resulted in legal actions. This is 'retail defamation': situations where businesses are sued (or threatened with being sued) for doing nothing more than protecting their stock or enforcing their legal obligations. The allegations are often minor, exaggerated, manufactured or plainly unfounded. The cost of fighting them in court is so high that many businesses choose to settle, even when they have done nothing wrong. On legal advice, many retailers now operate a 'no challenge' policy toward suspected shoplifters because it is far cheaper to let them steal than it is to defend a defamation action. [ Proposed defamation law reforms fall short of addressing free-speech concerns, say campaigners ] One major Irish grocery operator budgets losses through theft amounting to between €70,000 and €90,000 annually for each of its convenience stores and between €120,000 and €140,000 for its supermarkets. There is another example where a licensed premises successfully defended a defamation claim in the Circuit Court, only to face a threat of a High Court appeal unless they agreed to cover the plaintiff's legal costs. The business ultimately had to pay €3,000 in the settlement and absorb €12,375 in legal fees, with a subsequent rise in their insurance premium. This case underscores how the system incentivises legal threats against SMEs, regardless of merit. The original General Scheme for amendment in 2023 promised to introduce a defence of 'transient retail defamation', a common-sense measure to protect retailers, pharmacists, hospitality workers and others dealing with the public. That protection has been quietly dropped in this Bill. Instead, the Government now points to an expanded 'qualified privilege' defence, which already exists under the 2009 Act. It is already successfully used by retailers to defend these claims, but these are immediately appealed to the High Court. Retailers are still being threatened. Insurance costs are still climbing. And the legal threats keep coming. Worse still, the Bill does not include a harm test to prevent frivolous cases. This is not reform. It is retreat. Some people have framed this Bill as an assault on the right to a good name, but it is an attempt to rebalance competing constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the attempt falls far short of what is expected by the European Court of Human Rights . Both Article 40 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protect freedom of expression. That right is more honoured in the breach than the observance in Ireland. Why the Irish media has been so quiescent on this issue is a mystery. The International Press Institute published a report in 2023 called Ireland: how the wealthy and powerful abuse legal system to silence reporting . It detailed 19 cases of Slapp (strategic litigation against public participation) lawsuits referred to it by various parties. It could not identify plaintiffs of course; to do so would be viewed as defamatory in Ireland. To suggest that a defamation plaintiff is engaged in a Slapp suit in Ireland is ... defamatory. The Irish Small and Medium Enterprise association ( ISME), retail representative group RGDATA and the Index on Censorship have made direct appeals to senators to amend the Bill. Thirty bodies and civil society organisations, including the National Union of Journalists , RTÉ and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have also called for amendment of this Bill. It is objectively not fit for purpose as legislation intended to address the legal and constitutional shortcomings in the Defamation Act. ISME has made it very clear to TDs and senators that this Bill falls drastically short of what is required to stop abusive defamation litigation. We have tried to compromise and have sent senators proposals for just two amendments: one on the definition of defamation and the other on the capping of damages. Even these will not close the gaps which the EU Anti-Slapp Directive requires Ireland to address no later than May 2026. This Bill will not vindicate freedom of expression. EU justice commissioner Michael McGrath last week described freedom of expression as 'sacrosanct'. If this flawed amendment is enacted, we will be forced to take the matter to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers on Article 10 grounds under the ECHR. However, we hope that the prime motivator for the Seanad this week is not the threat of referral of the State to the European Commission. Rather, we would like to think our legislators' greater motivation would come from their desire to ensure citizens' rights granted by the 1937 Constitution. Over to you, Seanad Éireann. Neil McDonnell is chief executive of ISME, the Irish Small and Medium Enterprise association
Irish Times
10-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Supreme Court upholds €75,000 award to businessman mistakenly identified as a tax defaulter
A publisher has lost its Supreme Court appeal over a jury's award of €75,000 damages to a businessman over an article in the Limerick Leader which mistakenly named him as a tax defaulter. The appeal raised important issues concerning the nature and scope of the defence of qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 2009 and the common law. On Thursday, the five-judge court said the defence would only apply to mass media publications in 'exceptional' circumstances, including reports of judicial and parliamentary proceedings, and is limited to 'fair and accurate' reports. None of those circumstances applied to the June 2016 article in the Limerick Leader, published by Iconic Newspapers Ltd, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said when dismissing Iconic's appeal against the €75,000 award made by a High Court jury to William Bird after finding he was defamed in the article. READ MORE After the Court of Appeal dismissed Iconic's appeal against the jury's decision, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a further appeal in relation to the nature and scope of the qualified privilege defence and its relationship to other defences. Iconic had pleaded the words complained of were published on an occasion of qualified privilege. It pleaded that, acting in good faith, it published the article as part of its lawful and legitimate duty to report on matters of public interest, namely settlements made with Revenue. In the Supreme Court judgment, Mr Justice Collins said the context behind the 2009 Act was the need to balance competing constitutional values, the State's ability to vindicate the good names of citizens on the one hand, and the rights of citizens to freely express their convictions and opinions, and the media's liberty of expression, on the other. While qualified privilege can apply across a wide variety of circumstances, it applies to statements made 'in the discharge of some public or private duty', he said. The defence represents a 'delicate and sensitive balance' given the risk of reputational harm that can be caused be honest error, he said. The key concept is reciprocity between the duty and/or interest on the part of the speaker and listener respectively, although some instances of qualified privilege might be difficult to strictly rationalise on that basis. Only in exceptional circumstances will qualified privilege apply to communications to the world at large, he said. Such circumstances included replies to public attack and reports of judicial, parliamentary or other proceedings. In relation to such proceedings, it is not the source, but rather the 'nature' of those, or other matters in which the public is interested, that provides a basis for a defence. The defence of privilege in such circumstances was limited to fair and accurate reports and none of those circumstances applied in the Iconic case. In all jurisdictions other than the US where media publications can enjoy protection from being sued, they are subject to additional conditions beyond the requirement for honest belief/absence of malice, such as requirements the publication was 'reasonable or responsible'. The article in question, in its reference to Mr Bird, was 'materially inaccurate', the judge said. it had wrongly linked him to three companies in the defaulters' list with which he had no association. He was identified in the article as a result of a mistake made by the journalist who wrote it and that mistaken identification involved 'a significant lack of care' Iconic could not avail of qualified privilege in this case and its appeal must be dismissed on that point, he held. Mr Bird, the judge said, was entitled to his costs at High Court level, not at Circuit Court level as the trial judge had ordered. A proper application of the High Court judge's costs discretion would mean observing the €75,000 award was at the boundary of the High Court's jurisdiction and bringing his case in the Circuit Could would have carried a significant risk that Mr Bird would have been under-compensated, he said.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni Allowed Access To Taylor Swift & Blake Lively's Texts — Report
The text messages exchanged between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively reportedly took the centre stage once again in Justin Baldoni's alleged sexual assault and defamation case. Recently, the 'It Ends With Us' co-star got access to request the chats between the two ladies. The news came after Lively pleaded with the court to protect her conversations with the pop star. Furthermore, Swift's subpoena to appear in court was recently dismissed. Taylor Swift was dragged into Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively's 'It Ends With Us' case once again. The filmmaker had earlier requested access to the two stars' text messages. Despite Lively's request not to give access, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled in Baldoni's favor on June 18. According to Page Six, he stated, 'The requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove Lively's harassment and retaliation claims.' However, Baldoni can only review the messages related to the case or the 2024 movie. The tabloid further mentioned that Lively's lawyers attempted to compromise with her co-star's team. They argued to provide any documents to Baldoni's lawyer, except for the text messages exchanged between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively. However, the opposition party declined the offer. Earlier this week, Baldoni's team attempted to obtain the conversations of the celebrity BFFs. Lively tried to block his access to the chats and referred it to PR 'tactics' to ruin Swift's image. In response, the 41-year-old actor's legal team accused Ryan Reynolds' wife of using the singer's 'stardom to withhold evidence.' Meanwhile, Baldoni can now access the chat messages. The ruling came after the judge dismissed the actor's $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds, and their publicist, Leslie Sloane, for defamation and civil extortion on June 9. Originally reported by Sushmita Sen on Reality Tea. The post Justin Baldoni Allowed Access To Taylor Swift & Blake Lively's Texts — Report appeared first on Mandatory.
SBS Australia
19-06-2025
- Politics
- SBS Australia
Victorian Liberals spare John Pesutto from bankruptcy with $1.55 million loan
The Victorian Liberal Party has come to the financial rescue of its axed leader to spare him from bankruptcy and avoid a politically dangerous by-election. The state party's administrative committee met on Thursday night and agreed to lend former leader John Pesutto $1.55 million to settle his debt to first-term Liberal MP Moira Deeming. The party will pay the money directly to Deeming and Pesutto will be required to repay the loan at market-rate interest. In a letter to party members, Victorian Liberal president Philip Davis said the outcome would ensure there was no by-election in Pesutto's marginal seat of Hawthorn. Pesutto was ordered to pay $2.3 million in legal costs to Deeming after the Federal Court found he defamed her by implying she was associated with neo-Nazis. Pesutto, who has already coughed up $315,000 in damages, had raised only about $750,000 through wealthy backers and a GoFundMe campaign. An offer to defer some of the legal bill in exchange for Deeming's guaranteed pre-selection and Pesutto swearing off trying to return as leader for three years was rebuffed. Deeming, who was expelled from the party room before being welcomed back in December, was sceptical it would end the infighting that has engulfed the party since March 2023. "I assume that they will continue with their quest to try to annihilate me," the upper house MP said on Thursday morning. Deeming said the party can "do what they like" but she would take any support of Pesutto as a "direct rebukement (sic)" of the court judgement. State Opposition leader Brad Battin has not escaped internal criticism of his handling of the saga despite inheriting it when he replaced Pesutto as leader in December. He attended the meeting but would not reveal how he intended to vote.
Business Wire
05-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Chambers USA Ranks Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch Among Nation's Top Law Firms
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In its 2025 USA Guide, Chambers and Partners has awarded Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP a prestigious Band 1 ranking in First Amendment Litigation (Mainly Plaintiff), affirming the firm's commitment to excellence in legal advocacy. This accolade follows the firm's recognition in the Chambers High Net Worth Guide for Defamation / Reputation Management. Clients commend the firm, stating, 'You could not wish for a more dedicated, relentless team to represent you.' Share Since its inception in 2023, Meier Watkins has expanded to include eleven attorneys and three paralegals, building a team renowned for its dedication and relentless pursuit of justice in plaintiff-side defamation cases. Clients commend the firm, stating, 'You could not wish for a more dedicated, relentless team to represent you.' All four founding partners—Megan Meier, Daniel P. Watkins, Andrew Phillips, and Dustin Pusch—have been individually recognized by Chambers as leaders in their field. Notably, the firm now boasts more Chambers-ranked partners in First Amendment Litigation (Mainly Plaintiff) than any other law firm globally. About Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP specializes in plaintiff-side defamation, trade libel, and First Amendment litigation. The firm represents a diverse clientele, including companies, organizations, executives, founders, high-net-worth individuals, and public figures facing reputational challenges.
