Judgment: 2024-07-22 · Court archive

High Court refuses extension for defamation claim over 2018 Garda complaint

The court held the claim was filed outside the limitation period, rejecting arguments for a date-of-knowledge test or exclusion of time spent during a criminal investigation.

High Court · [2024] IEHC 459

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Donal Coleman (Plaintiff)
  • Alan Coleman (Defendant)
What

The court held the claim was filed outside the limitation period, rejecting arguments for a date-of-knowledge test or exclusion of time spent during a criminal investigation.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 28 October 2021; 13 November 2018

    Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger ruled that the alleged defamatory statement was made on 13 November 2018, when the defendant gave a statement to gardaí. The plaintiff issued his plenary summons on 28 October 2021, almost three years later. The court held the proceedings were statute barred and refused the extension application.

  • 6 January 2020

    The plaintiff said he first learned of the complaint at an interview with gardaí on 6 January 2020. He argued that the limitation provisions should be interpreted to include a date-of-knowledge test, or that periods when he was waiting for the criminal investigation to conclude should be excluded. The defendant opposed both arguments, saying the court lacked jurisdiction to apply such a test or exclude time.

  • 26 July 2024

    The court’s decision was limited to the application to extend time. It did not determine the underlying defamation claim. The judge gave an indicative view that the defendant was entitled to costs, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree. She listed the matter for mention on 26 July 2024 to hear the parties on final orders, including costs.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger ruled that the alleged defamatory statement was made on 13 November 2018, when the defendant gave a statement to gardaí. The plaintiff issued his plenary summons on 28 October 2021, almost three years later. The court held the proceedings were statute barred and refused the extension application.

The High Court has refused Donal Coleman’s application to extend time to bring defamation proceedings against Alan Coleman over a complaint made to An Garda Síochána in 2018.

Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger ruled that the alleged defamatory statement was made on 13 November 2018, when the defendant gave a statement to gardaí. The plaintiff issued his plenary summons on 28 October 2021, almost three years later. The court held the proceedings were statute barred and refused the extension application.

The plaintiff said he first learned of the complaint at an interview with gardaí on 6 January 2020. He argued that the limitation provisions should be interpreted to include a date-of-knowledge test, or that periods when he was waiting for the criminal investigation to conclude should be excluded. The defendant opposed both arguments, saying the court lacked jurisdiction to apply such a test or exclude time.

The judge said Irish defamation law had no date-of-knowledge test and that applying one would conflict with the statutory wording and legislative intent. She referred to earlier decisions, including the Court of Appeal’s decision in Reidy v Pasek, which upheld the conclusion that the court had no jurisdiction to extend time where proceedings were issued more than two years after publication.

The plaintiff also said he considered it inappropriate to sue while the criminal investigation was ongoing. The judge found no legal basis for that concern and said civil proceedings could be issued while a criminal investigation was in progress. She also found that his other reasons for delay, including reluctance to litigate against a family member, did not alter the date on which the cause of action accrued.

The court’s decision was limited to the application to extend time. It did not determine the underlying defamation claim. The judge gave an indicative view that the defendant was entitled to costs, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree. She listed the matter for mention on 26 July 2024 to hear the parties on final orders, including costs.

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