The High Court has given both sides in a defamation case brought by Declan Ganley and Rivada Networks Ltd against three CNN-related companies an opportunity to file further evidence on US law before it decides whether the Irish proceedings should be stayed.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said on 22 March 2024 that the court could not assess whether a US court was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Ireland because neither side had provided direct expert evidence on whether a US court could hear the claim. The defendants seek a stay under the principle of forum non conveniens, arguing that the events behind the alleged defamation are connected to the United States.
The claim concerns a CNN news story published on television and online in October 2020. The plaintiffs plead that it conveyed meanings including that they acted corruptly or improperly in seeking a US Department of Defense spectrum lease, sought to avoid competitive bidding and improperly influenced the US government. Those are pleaded allegations, not findings. The defendants have indicated they will rely on defences that the story was substantially true and concerned a matter of public interest.
The plaintiffs say a US claim would be statute barred and that US defences would be less favourable. They also say their Irish case concerns loss of reputation in Ireland, rather than worldwide losses. The judge noted that the parties disagree about which companies the story’s reference to “Rivada” identified, and whether the Irish company and Mr Ganley were among those identified. Those questions, as well as the meaning and effect of the story, remain for the trial court.
The judge said the defendants must identify a particular alternative court and establish that it would have jurisdiction to hear this type of claim. The defendants had previously suggested federal courts in Washington, DC, Atlanta or New York, but the judgment said the court could not assume a US court would entertain a claim by an Irish citizen or an Irish company over publication in Ireland. The court also had no direct expert evidence on the asserted US limitation period or the plaintiffs’ arguments about US defences.
Rather than refuse the stay motion outright for lack of evidence, the judge said that would be unfair and disproportionate. He directed the defendants to file their evidence within six weeks and the plaintiffs to respond within six weeks after that, with both periods running from 16 April 2024. The stay application was not determined. The judge’s provisional view was that costs should be reserved until the motion is fully heard and decided. Either side could make submissions on different evidence deadlines or costs at a hearing listed for 16 April 2024 at 10.30 am.