The High Court has refused an application to require two plaintiffs to provide security for costs in their defamation proceedings against Dana Rosemary Scallan and TV3 Television Network Limited. The ruling concerned the security application only; it did not decide whether the broadcast statements were defamatory or whether the defendants were liable.
The plaintiffs, Susan Stein and Susan Gorrell, seek damages, including punitive and aggravated damages, a correction order and an order prohibiting further publication. They allege that comments made by Scallan in a TV3 interview on 14 October 2011 falsely accused them of spreading malicious allegations about her brother, John Brown. Scallan denies that either plaintiff was identified and relies on defences including truth and honest opinion.
The application was brought by Scallan under Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judge found that she had put forward admissible evidence and arguable legal submissions sufficient to establish a prima facie defence for the purposes of this interlocutory application. He stressed that the court was not deciding whether that defence would succeed at trial.
The parties disputed the plaintiffs’ ability to pay costs. Scallan sought security of €450,000; the plaintiffs estimated the relevant costs at €189,000. Their after-the-event insurance policies had limits of €150,000 each. The court found the policies too conditional to provide adequate security, but said the plaintiffs’ disputed impecuniosity was not itself a reason to grant the application. It also found no appreciable or prejudicial delay by Scallan.
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs had shown special circumstances warranting refusal. He considered the comments’ connection to Scallan’s presidential campaign and the public value of litigating civil claims involving allegations of sexual abuse where a criminal trial had ended in acquittal. The court did not determine the truth of the abuse allegations or the defamation claims.
The court therefore refused to direct the plaintiffs to furnish security for costs. The judgment does not resolve the underlying proceedings.