The High Court has refused an application by Neil Reidy to extend time for proposed defamation proceedings against Czeslaw Pasek over an email and letter allegedly sent to Wexford Court Office in March 2018. Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan dismissed the application on 1 June 2022, finding that no proceedings over that alleged publication had been issued within the statutory two-year period.
The application was issued in July 2019, within two years of the alleged publication, but was heard nearly three years later. The judge said the only proceedings actually issued by Reidy were an earlier defamation action, brought in February 2018 over a December 2017 letter. That action was struck out for want of jurisdiction in May 2019 after a judge refused Reidy’s request to amend it to include the later alleged publication. The strike-out order was under appeal, which Phelan said did not appear to have been determined.
Reidy maintained that further proceedings had been issued under another record number. After the hearing, the court allowed him to file a supplemental affidavit to clarify the position. Phelan concluded from that evidence and the court record that no separate defamation proceedings had issued from the Central Office. A summons Reidy exhibited was neither stamped nor filed, and the defendant’s solicitor denied authority to accept service and denied that it had been served.
The judge held that an application for an extension could be considered after the two-year period only if the relevant proceedings had been issued within that period. An application made in advance could also be considered, she said, but would be ineffective unless determined before the two-year period expired. As no relevant proceedings had issued in time, the court had no jurisdiction to grant the extension.
Phelan also considered whether an extension should be granted assuming the court had jurisdiction. She found Reidy had not provided a sufficiently clear and supported explanation for the delay, including the failure to regularise the proceedings after the May 2019 ruling. The judge also found that the evidence did not show that prejudice to Reidy from refusing an extension would significantly outweigh the prejudice to Pasek from granting one. She described the proven publication as limited to a letter sent to the court office and assessed the reputational damage established in evidence as minimal. No specific evidence said to be unavailable because of delay was identified.
The court refused the direction sought under section 11(2)(c) and dismissed the application. It did not determine whether the alleged email or letter was defamatory or who sent it.