The High Court has refused Gemma O’Doherty’s application to set aside an order deeming service of a defamation summons effective in proceedings brought by James Guerin. The court also varied, by consent, how future documents are to be served on her and awarded the costs of her motion to Mr Guerin.
The judgment concerns service and related procedural issues. It does not decide the underlying defamation claim.
Mr Guerin’s proceedings were instituted on 9 September 2019 after Ms O’Doherty posted comments on Twitter on 11 and 12 July 2019 about a court case. His side said attempts to serve her personally had been unsuccessful. The judgment records that a letter sent to her by registered post was recorded as delivered on 21 May 2020, then returned as undelivered on 29 May. The plaintiff’s side argued that she may have arranged for it to be returned; the judge considered that a reasonable inference on the evidence.
A summons server later said he knocked at her door and, after identifying himself and explaining he had a summons, she replied, “sorry, no”. The judge said Ms O’Doherty had not meaningfully countered that account.
On 10 August 2020, the High Court had deemed service of the summons on KRW Law Advocates good and sufficient and allowed substituted service of future documents at an address in Shankill. The judgment explains that the firm had undertaken to “serve” an appearance, rather than to file one as required by the relevant court rule. The judge therefore found it necessary for Mr Guerin to seek an order deeming service good.
At the hearing on 19 August, Ms O’Doherty sought to set aside that service ruling and change the arrangements for future service. Mr Guerin consented to future documents being sent by ordinary post to an address in Foxrock and by email to an address supplied by Ms O’Doherty. The judge varied the earlier order on those terms but refused to set aside its first paragraph. He also directed that an unfiled appearance signed by KRW Law be disregarded and released the firm from any undertakings in the case.
The judgment records a separate order prohibiting anyone with notice of it from publishing Ms O’Doherty’s full address or email address, with liberty to apply. The judge said she had failed to substantiate allegations of wrongdoing against Mr Guerin’s legal team. He awarded Mr Guerin the costs of the motion, citing the outcome of the contested issue and his disapproval of those unsubstantiated complaints.
The court also ordered that recordings of relevant court dates be made available to both parties on specified terms. That order was stayed until 1 December 2020 by consent, to ensure the recordings were available for the substantive proceedings and not used for a collateral purpose.