Judgment: 2026-03-18 · Court archive

High Court upholds discovery of Garda complaint in Keegan Quarries defamation case

High Court · [2026] IEHC 239

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John Keegan
  • Keegan Quarries Limited
  • Kieran Cummins
  • Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins
What

High Court upholds discovery of Garda complaint in Keegan Quarries defamation case

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Trim Garda Station
  • Circuit Court
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court found the complaint relevant and necessary for a fair trial. Garda Commissioner representatives remained neutral and said a formal court order was required before disclosure.

The High Court has upheld an order requiring gardaí in Trim to disclose a complaint made by environmental activist and solicitor Kieran Cummins against John Keegan and Keegan Quarries Limited.

Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins dismissed Mr Cummins’ appeal from a Circuit Court discovery order on March 18. However, he narrowed the order so that An Garda Síochána must disclose only the complaint itself, rather than the wider Garda file.

The underlying Circuit Court proceedings were issued in February 2022. Mr Keegan and Keegan Quarries allege defamation and malicious falsehood arising from a criminal complaint Mr Cummins accepts making to Trim Garda Station in April 2021.

The plaintiffs say they were told the complaint included allegations of harassment, coercion, false claims of trespass and an offer of money. Mr Cummins denies liability. His defence pleads truth, public-interest protection, absolute or qualified privilege and absence of malice. He also argues that the proceedings amount to strategic litigation against public participation, or SLAPP, intended to discourage his involvement in planning matters.

The High Court said those substantive defences should not be decided at the discovery stage. The judge also noted that the Director of Public Prosecutions had directed that there should be no prosecution arising from the complaint.

A central factor was the imbalance between the parties. Mr Cummins knows the exact contents of his complaint and relies on them in his defence, while the plaintiffs do not have the document on which their claim is based.

The court found the complaint relevant and necessary for a fair trial. Garda Commissioner representatives remained neutral and said a formal court order was required before disclosure.

The revised order covers either the written complaint made around April 2021 or, if it was not made in writing, the Garda record of that complaint. Costs of the High Court appeal were awarded against Mr Cummins, but entry and execution of that costs order were stayed until the Circuit Court proceedings conclude.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review