The High Court has refused Nora Martin’s request to make Genesis Psychotherapy and Family Therapy Service Limited set out the exact words allegedly spoken about her at a staff meeting in 2015.
Mr Justice Twomey ruled on a motion in Martin’s defamation proceedings. She had asked the court to strike out Genesis’s defences of truth and qualified privilege or, alternatively, to let her serve interrogatories or require the company to particularise the remarks.
Martin alleges that Genesis treasurer Richard Trehy made defamatory statements about her management of the service and her handling of money raised at a 2013 fundraising event. She was not at the May 2015 staff meeting. The words attributed to Trehy in her amended claim included references to a possible criminal offence and prison sentence, the service being open to criminal charges, and Martin having mismanaged the service. The judgment stressed that the precise words remain disputed and are a matter for evidence at trial.
Genesis denies that the complained-of words were spoken. It also pleads truth and qualified privilege. Its truth defence alleges that Martin kept the fundraising money at her home for an extended period to make it appear that the service had less money available than it did. The judgment states that no one had alleged in the pleadings that she misappropriated the funds. These are the company’s pleaded allegations, not findings made on this motion.
The court held that a defendant may deny publication while also pleading alternative defences. It found that Martin knew the broad outline of the case she would face and was not entitled to advance notice of the evidence Genesis might rely on. The judgment said Martin must prove at trial that the alleged words were published; if she does, Genesis will bear the burden of proving its pleaded defences.
The court refused all relief sought in Martin’s motion, dated 27 October 2020. It did not decide whether the remarks were made, whether they were defamatory, or whether either defence will succeed at trial. The judge asked the parties to engage on outstanding matters; if further orders were needed, the case was to be listed for mention one week after delivery of the judgment, at 10.45am.