Judgment: 2008-07-29 · Court archive

High Court awards €75,000 over defamatory letter kept on planning file

The court found An Bord Pleanála liable for keeping a false letter on a publicly accessible file and ordered its removal, but declined to award aggravated damages.

High Court · [2008] IEHC 275

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • An Bord Pleanála (Defendant)
  • Gerard Lynam
What

The court found An Bord Pleanála liable for keeping a false letter on a publicly accessible file and ordered its removal, but declined to award aggravated damages.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • planning file
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court found An Bord Pleanála liable for defamation after it kept a withdrawn letter containing false allegations on a publicly accessible planning file. It awarded the plaintiff €75,000 in general damages and ordered the letter, along with documents referring to it, removed from the file. The court declined to award aggravated damages.

The High Court found An Bord Pleanála liable for defamation after it kept a withdrawn letter containing false allegations on a publicly accessible planning file. It awarded the plaintiff €75,000 in general damages and ordered the letter, along with documents referring to it, removed from the file. The court declined to award aggravated damages.

Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 29 July 2008 in an appeal from the Circuit Court. The plaintiff had sought removal of a letter dated 13 October 1999, defamation damages and other relief. The letter, written by public representative Gerard Lynam, concerned an application for planning permission for a house. According to the judgment, Lynam later acknowledged that he had mistaken the plaintiff for someone else, withdrew the letter and apologised.

An Bord Pleanála argued that planning regulations required it to retain documents relating to an appeal for public inspection, and claimed absolute or qualified privilege. The judge found the letter contained no information relevant to planning issues and that the regulations did not require its retention. He held that neither form of privilege protected the Board.

The judgment records evidence that at least three people besides the plaintiffs had inspected the file. The judge found the letter’s presence there amounted to substantial publication. He also noted that the Board had known since December 1999 that the allegations were false, but did not remove the letter after the plaintiff asked it to do so. The Board had said a High Court order would be needed.

The judge found the Board’s response inadequate and said it fell short of the State’s duty to vindicate the plaintiff’s good name. He criticised the Board’s administrative indifference, while making clear that his decision not to award aggravated damages was not an endorsement of its actions. He said the Board had not originated the defamation and took into account the sum the plaintiff had already recovered from other parties when setting general damages.

The order directs removal from the file of the 1999 letter from Lynam to An Bord Pleanála and all documents referring to it expressly or by implication.

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