The High Court has extended the limitation period for part of a defamation claim arising from remarks at a Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association conference in September 2011, ruling that the plaintiff could apply for the extension after issuing proceedings.
Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton delivered the ruling on 30 November 2018. The plaintiff, John Quinn, sought relief after the defendants amended their defence to plead that claims concerning matters before 21 December 2011 were statute barred. His plenary summons had issued on 21 December 2012, more than a year after the alleged remarks were first published.
The court first considered whether the plaintiff had to obtain an extension before issuing proceedings. The defendants argued that the statutory wording required prior court permission. The judge rejected that interpretation, finding that proceedings could be issued after the ordinary one-year period and that an extension application became necessary if the defendants pleaded the limitation defence. The defendants had not included that plea in their original defence; it was added by amendment.
The judge then considered whether to extend the period. The plaintiff said he had waited for an independent investigation into complaints about conference remarks, including allegations that votes had been offered for sale at a meeting in Mullingar and that people involved were “gangsters” and “crooks”. Those were allegations described in the judgment, not findings that the statements were true. The investigation produced an interim report in August 2012, but the process was not completed until January 2013 and was inconclusive.
The judge considered it reasonable for the plaintiff to have expected the investigation and the association’s September 2012 conference might resolve the complaints. He also noted that the plaintiff accepted he might have sought legal advice and issued proceedings earlier. The defendants disputed aspects of his explanation. The parties agreed that, because the affidavits conflicted on relevant facts, the court would assess the application on the plaintiff’s case at its strongest.
The court found no basis to conclude that relevant evidence had become unavailable because of the delay. It also weighed the defendants’ loss of a limitation defence against the plaintiff’s loss of the opportunity to pursue claims concerning the 2011 events. The judge was satisfied that the plaintiff’s prejudice would be significantly greater and that the interests of justice favoured an extension.
The court granted a direction extending the limitation period by no more than two years from the date the cause of action accrued. The ruling concerned the time limit only; it did not determine whether the alleged defamatory statements were made or whether the defendants were liable.