The High Court refused an application to extend the time for bringing a defamation claim over a Facebook comment allegedly posted on 9 June 2018. The court found the applicant had not shown that an extension was in the interests of justice or that her likely prejudice from refusal significantly outweighed the respondent’s prejudice if time were extended.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 16 February 2022, concerned an appeal by the respondent against a Circuit Court order granting the extension. The High Court heard the appeal on 7 February 2022.
The applicant said the respondent’s comment, posted in a closed Facebook group, defamed her over her professional qualifications and whether she could diagnose children with autism. The comment was not reproduced here. The applicant also alleged that the respondent published further comments in May 2019, but the extension application concerned only the 2018 post. Proceedings concerning the 2019 comments had been brought within the limitation period, the judgment said.
The applicant had been aware of the 2018 post when it appeared, the court found, and had contacted the group administrator that day. In May 2019, while still within the one-year limitation period, she also contacted the respondent and threatened legal action. The court rejected the applicant’s original account that she had learned of the post only months before October 2019. It also found that messages did not support her later explanation that she believed the respondent’s comment would be removed.
The judge said the applicant had not provided a cogent explanation for missing the one-year deadline and had failed in her duty of candour by making a false statement in her first affidavit. The court also considered the alleged defamation was not at the grave end of the spectrum and that the respondent appeared to have a stateable defence. It made no finding that any defence would succeed.
The court said no specific evidence was shown to have become unavailable because of the delay. It also noted the applicant could continue to pursue her claims concerning the 2019 posts, reducing the prejudice caused by refusing an extension for the 2018 post.
The High Court concluded that neither statutory limb was satisfied and refused the extension. On costs, the judge gave a provisional view that the respondent should recover costs for the Circuit Court and High Court proceedings. The parties were given 14 days to make written submissions on a different costs order, with final orders listed for 9 March 2022.