The High Court granted Paul McNamara judgment in default of defence in his defamation action against Sunday Newspapers Limited, trading as the Sunday World, and Eugene Masterson. The court directed that damages be assessed later by a judge and jury; it did not assess damages in this ruling.
Mr McNamara’s claim arose from an article published on 21 December 2014. He claimed damages and other relief, including a declaration that statements and a photograph published about him were false. The defendants published a correction a week after the article. Mr McNamara claimed that it lacked the prominence and detail needed to address the harm.
This was Mr McNamara’s second application for judgment in default of defence. After his first application, the defendants consented to an order extending the time to deliver a defence by two weeks. They did not meet that deadline. The court recorded that the plaintiff’s solicitors had sent several warning letters before and after the first application, and that the defendants still had not filed a defence when the second application was heard.
The defendants had made an offer of amends under section 22 of the Defamation Act 2009 on 30 October 2015, after the second motion had issued. The offer set out the statutory terms in principle: a suitable correction and sufficient apology, publication in a reasonable and practicable manner, and compensation and costs to be agreed or determined. The defendants said they would deliver a defence once Mr McNamara accepted or rejected the offer. His solicitors asked for specific proposals; the defendants replied that details could be agreed or determined if the offer was accepted.
The defendants argued that Mr McNamara’s failure to answer the offer was a special circumstance justifying the delay. They also argued that one of the remedies he sought was unavailable in the High Court. Mr McNamara’s side argued that the offer was being used to gain a procedural advantage and that the court should apply the rule governing a second default application.
Justice Binchy said a defendant may, in the ordinary course, reasonably await a reply to an offer of amends before filing a defence. But he found that the offer could have been made much earlier, given the defendants’ knowledge of the circumstances and their publication of a correction seven days after the original article. The court had received no explanation for the delay. It concluded that the plaintiff’s silence did not cause the default; the defendants’ delay in making the offer did. The asserted remedy issue could be addressed in a defence and did not amount to a special circumstance.
The court therefore granted judgment for Mr McNamara and directed that damages be assessed by a judge and jury. The judgment did not determine the amount of damages or resolve the underlying defamation claim on its merits.