The High Court has dismissed Liam Lappin’s defamation claim against Mediahuis UK Limited and journalist Suzanne Breen concerning a Sunday Life article and accompanying photographs published on 1 March 2020. It also struck out his claim for injurious falsehood because the pleadings did not set out the damage or financial loss required by law.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan delivered the judgment on 29 November 2023. The application was brought by the first and second defendants under sections 14 and 42 of the Defamation Act 2009. The third defendant, Ruth Dudley Edwards, was separately represented and did not take part in the application. The court did not determine any issue of vicarious liability between her and the first defendant.
The article concerned Sinn Féin Finance Minister Conor Murphy and Frank McCabe, whom it described as a former IRA officer commanding in South Armagh. A group photograph from a Sinn Féin Newry and Armagh Christmas party included Mr Lappin, a schoolteacher and Sinn Féin constituency organiser. The judgment noted that he was not named or referred to in the article, and was not identified in the photograph; red circles highlighted Mr Murphy and Mr McCabe.
Mr Lappin’s pleadings alleged that the article and photograph conveyed, among other things, that he was a murderer, a member of the IRA or a criminal gang, and untrustworthy. He also claimed damages for breach of privacy and breach of his data, and pursued defamation and injurious falsehood claims over a tweet by Ms Dudley Edwards. Those claims were not determined by this application.
The judge applied the section 14 test: whether a reasonable reader could understand the article, read as a whole, to bear the meanings pleaded. He concluded that the photograph, headlines and article singled out Mr Murphy and Mr McCabe, not Mr Lappin. A reasonable reader would not infer the pleaded criminality or character allegations merely from Mr Lappin’s presence in a group photograph. The court held those meanings strained, forced and utterly unreasonable, and dismissed the defamation claim insofar as it concerned the article and photographs published on 1 March 2020.
The court separately struck out the injurious falsehood claim. The pleadings did not allege special damage or that the publication was calculated and likely to cause financial loss in relation to Mr Lappin’s property, profession or business.
The judge indicated that the first and second defendants were entitled to the costs of the motion and to costs of defending the defamation and injurious falsehood claims to date, subject to submissions. He directed that any submissions on the form of the order or costs be made in writing, with the plaintiff to file within 14 days and the defendants to reply within a further 14 days.