The High Court awarded Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Limited €40,000 in damages after finding that four online reviews posted by James Manning were defamatory. The award followed an assessment of damages; the court had already granted judgment in default of appearance in October 2023. It did not make a final costs order in this judgment, instead listing the matter for mention on 19 February 2025 to address costs and other consequential matters.
The dispute arose from heating work at a rented property in Ranelagh in early 2022. The property belonged to Mr Manning’s sisters, and he assisted in its management. The company said the work involved replacing a circulating pump and valves and addressing leaks. Mr Manning disputed the price and refused to pay about €1,190. The company removed the equipment it had installed. Mr Manning later reported the matter to gardaí and arranged for another engineer to do work at a stated cost of €794.
Mr Manning accepted responsibility for four reviews, including posts describing the company as “cowboys”, “gangsters”, “absolute con men” and a “rogue trader”, and alleging that gardaí were investigating the removal of items. The judge found that the reviews were defamatory in their ordinary meaning and alleged criminal conduct. He also found that the reviews attributed to other reviewers in the company’s claim had not been shown to be the responsibility of either defendant.
The company’s managing director, Dara Keogh, said the posts were damaging to the business’s reputation and could affect customer decisions. The judge accepted that online reviews could circulate widely and that the company’s reputation mattered to its business. However, two reviews were removed after about 24 hours and two after about four days. The court found general reputational harm but did not accept that the reviews caused the particular drops in sales identified in evidence.
Mr Manning expressed regret about the tone of the reviews and apologised for reposting one using his wife’s name after his own name had been blocked. The judge found no evidence that Julie Manning was responsible for any of the reviews. He declined to award aggravated or punitive damages and placed the case in the “moderate” category of seriousness under the framework discussed in the judgment. The court’s proposed order awarded €40,000 in damages to the company. Its view that the company should receive costs from Mr Manning was provisional, pending the further mention.