The High Court refused a motion by Seamus Griffin seeking further and better particulars of parts of the defence filed by Sunday Newspapers Limited in a libel action.
Mr Justice Ryan delivered the judgment on 30 March 2012. The motion concerned the newspaper’s pleas that its publication of 27 June 2010 was a fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest under section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009; that it could rely on honest opinion under sections 20 and 21; and that the publication or clarification was made on an occasion of qualified privilege.
The plaintiff sought detailed particulars of those pleas. His counsel argued that the information was needed to prepare the case. Counsel for the newspaper submitted that the defence was comprehensively pleaded and already contained the necessary particulars.
The parties agreed that the applicable approach was set out in an earlier High Court decision, *Quinn Insurance Ltd and others v Tribune Newspapers plc and others* [2009] IEHC 229. Mr Justice Ryan adopted the reasoning in that case: particulars should define the issues adequately and give the parties a broad outline of what would be said at trial, rather than require detailed particulars of specific aspects of a case.
The judge concluded that the requested information was not reasonably required by the plaintiff to present his case. He said it was not clear what information the queries sought and that simply repeating the key words of a plea before asking for more particulars was insufficient. He considered the defence as a whole a clear statement of the newspaper’s position and of the factual and legal issues it raised.
The judgment also noted that the plaintiff had brought a separate motion for discovery of documents relating to the pleas of justification and qualified privilege, and that the newspaper consented to an order on that motion. Mr Justice Ryan refused the motion for further particulars. The judgment does not state the outcome of the separate discovery motion.