The High Court refused Dan Philpott’s application for interlocutory orders to stop the Irish Examiner republishing two online articles about his former employment at Marymount University Hospital and Hospice Limited. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 8 February 2016.
The application was brought under section 33 of the Defamation Act 2009. The court said it could make an order only if, in its opinion, the statements were defamatory and the defendant had no defence reasonably likely to succeed. It stressed that even where those conditions are met, the statute says the court “may” grant an order.
The first article, published on 13 June 2015, reported a Circuit Court decision concerning Mr Philpott’s claims about his dismissal and alleged wrongdoing at Marymount. The second, published on 5 December 2015, reported that his later High Court proceedings against Marymount had been resolved by agreement and that the Circuit Court orders and findings of fact had been set aside.
Mr Philpott challenged aspects of both reports. Among his concerns, he argued that the first article presented Marymount’s stated reason for his dismissal as established fact, and that the second did not make clear enough that the Circuit Court findings had been set aside. The High Court examined the articles against the relevant judgments and the arguments made at the hearing.
On the first article, Mr Justice Barrett acknowledged that its opening presented the reported staff difficulties as fact, although the Circuit Court judgment described them as Marymount’s assertion. He concluded that this did not tend to injure Mr Philpott’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. He also found no material divergence between the article’s account of the charity funding allegations and the Circuit Court judgment. The article’s account of concerns about possible Legionnaires’ contamination and patient transfers likewise did not, in his opinion, meet the test for a defamatory statement.
The court considered the second article to be an account of the amicable resolution and a summary of the earlier proceedings. Although it did not expressly say that all Circuit Court findings of fact had been set aside, the court found that omission did not make the article defamatory.
The judge concluded that neither article, nor any statement in either, tended to injure Mr Philpott’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. He also found that absolute privilege was open to the Irish Examiner as a defence for both reports and was reasonably likely to succeed. The court therefore declined all the relief sought. It did not order the articles removed from the website.