The High Court has refused Joseph Burke’s application to compel Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd to provide further particulars of its defence to his defamation action. The court ruled that the defence gave him the case he had to meet in broad outline; it did not decide whether the newspaper’s allegations were true.
The action followed an October 2002 Ireland on Sunday article about an inquiry by the Flood Tribunal into allegations of political corruption and the zoning of lands at Quarryvale in west Dublin. The article described Burke, a building contractor and former Dublin city councillor, as a close friend of the then Taoiseach and said he was being investigated over discussions involving the Taoiseach and property developer Tom Gilmartin.
Burke began proceedings in May 2003. The newspaper denied that the article carried the defamatory meanings pleaded by Burke, while also pleading that, if it did, those meanings were true in substance and fact. In particulars supplied in 2006, the newspaper alleged, among other things, that Burke had discussed the Quarryvale development with Gilmartin. It further alleged that Burke asked Gilmartin whether he would pay £500,000 to the Taoiseach to resolve difficulties over the development, and drove him to places where they hoped to meet the Taoiseach. These remain allegations in the defence.
In June 2009, Burke sought further details, including the dates and locations of the alleged meetings and drives, the places visited and the identities of anyone they encountered. The newspaper said those requests concerned evidence rather than matters that had to be set out in pleadings. Burke then applied for a court order requiring answers.
Justice Hogan considered whether the requested particulars were needed to let Burke understand the nature of the defence. He held that the central allegation of a request for a corrupt payment had already been particularised. The precise dates and venues, details of the driving, and identities of potential witnesses would concern evidence to be tested at trial, rather than the broad outline of the case.
The judge refused the application and did not require the newspaper to answer the 2009 request. He therefore did not need to decide the newspaper’s separate argument that Burke’s delay in pursuing the action should weigh against granting the order. The ruling did not determine the merits of the defamation action or the truth of the defence. Hogan noted the lengthy delays on both sides and said the parties should proceed promptly toward trial.