The Court of Appeal reduced the damages payable to solicitor David Christie from €140,000 to €36,000 after finding that the High Court had set too high a starting point for compensation over a mistaken television broadcast.
TV3’s evening news bulletin on 11 November 2013 reported on the criminal trial of former solicitor Thomas Byrne. The report was accompanied by footage of Christie entering the Criminal Courts of Justice in Dublin. Christie was not named, but the court found the footage showed him rather than Byrne because of an editing error.
TV3 broadcast an apology on 15 November, saying there was “absolutely no suggestion” that Christie had been on trial for offences. It later made a formal offer of amends under section 22 of the Defamation Act 2009. The parties accepted the offer in principle, but did not agree on compensation. The High Court heard the damages issue, with evidence from Christie and the broadcast itself; TV3 did not otherwise defend the proceedings.
Christie told the High Court that after the broadcast he was called a thief, spat at, and confronted by people who believed he had been involved in criminal wrongdoing. He also said clients contacted him with concerns about their documents and that the incident affected his practice. He acknowledged that the economic downturn might also have affected the practice.
The High Court assessed damages in a fully contested case at about €200,000, then applied a discount of roughly one third for the apology and offer of amends, awarding €140,000. TV3 appealed, arguing that the starting figure was too high and that the discount should be increased to 50 per cent.
The Court of Appeal said the broadcast was a serious defamation, with considerable potential for confusion and distress. But it was a single report lasting about nine seconds; Christie was not named; there was no animus; and people close to him would know the footage was mistaken. It set the appropriate damages starting point at €60,000.
The court increased the discount to 40 per cent, recognising that TV3 acknowledged its mistake quickly and gave the apology prominence. It said a more complete apology could have justified a larger discount: the apology did not expressly acknowledge that Christie had been defamed, and TV3’s initial proposal of a €1,000 charitable donation was inadequate in light of the seriousness of the defamation.
The court allowed the appeal to that extent and substituted €36,000 in damages for the High Court’s €140,000 award. The judgment addressed the damages determination in the accepted offer of amends process; it did not set aside the finding that the footage had mistakenly shown Christie.