Judgment: 2019-07-30 · Court archive

Supreme Court sends Kevin Tracey defamation motion back for rehearing

The court allowed Tracey’s appeal and remitted the motion to the High Court, without deciding the underlying defamation claim.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Kevin Tracey (Plaintiff)
  • Independent Star Limited
  • Gerard Colleran (Defendant)
  • John MacMenamin (Judge)
What

The court allowed Tracey’s appeal and remitted the motion to the High Court, without deciding the underlying defamation claim.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The defendants’ counsel argued that the proceedings were issued on 23 December 2008 and served on 18 December 2009, about five years after publication. Counsel submitted that the proceedings were not complex and were capable of being found bound to fail, distinguishing them from another case concerning complexity. The judgment notes that the submissions addressed the distinction between an application under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to strike out proceedings.

The Supreme Court has allowed Kevin Tracey’s appeal in a defamation case against Independent Star Limited and Gerard Colleran, sending the defendants’ motion back to the High Court for rehearing.

In a judgment dated 30 July 2019, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said he was not persuaded that this case should depart from the form of order made in a related appeal involving Tracey and the Irish Times. The court’s order was to allow the appeal and remit the motion for rehearing in the High Court. It did not determine the underlying defamation claim.

The case concerns an article published on 17 September 2004 under the headline “Man convicted over ball row assault”. The report said Tracey had been convicted of assaulting a neighbour after a dispute involving children playing football near his home. The judgment describes the article as allegedly defamatory; it does not make a finding here that it was defamatory.

The defendants’ counsel argued that the proceedings were issued on 23 December 2008 and served on 18 December 2009, about five years after publication. Counsel submitted that the proceedings were not complex and were capable of being found bound to fail, distinguishing them from another case concerning complexity. The judgment notes that the submissions addressed the distinction between an application under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to strike out proceedings.

MacMenamin J said the observations on balancing rights in the related Irish Times judgment also applied. The Supreme Court’s decision sends the motion back for a rehearing; the judgment does not state the result of that rehearing.

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