The High Court has ruled that a claimant may issue defamation proceedings after the first year of the limitation period and later ask the court to extend the time limit. It also said it would grant an extension to pharmacist Paul McAllister, whose claim concerns a Garda vetting report that allegedly attributed his brother’s convictions to him.
In a judgment delivered on 9 June 2023, Mr Justice Dignam resolved a difference in earlier High Court decisions over whether an extension application must be made before proceedings begin. He held that the application may be made afterwards, while leaving open the option of applying in advance. The court’s ruling concerns the procedure and limitation period; it does not determine whether the alleged statements were defamatory or whether the Commissioner is liable.
The judgment says McAllister learned on 13 December 2019 that the report had previously been provided to the Irish Pharmacy Union and published to pharmacies when he sought employment. The defence pleaded that the report was first published on 22 June 2018, a date the plaintiff did not dispute. Under the statutory rule described in the judgment, the claim was outside the one-year period and would have been absolutely time-barred after two years unless the court extended the time.
McAllister issued proceedings on 20 May 2020 and delivered his extension motion on 21 September 2021, after the Commissioner pleaded that the claim was time-barred. The Commissioner argued that an extension had to be obtained before proceedings were issued. The judge rejected that interpretation, concluding that it would shorten the statutory period and that the legislation did not clearly require that result.
The court then considered whether the statutory test for an extension was met. It accepted that McAllister had not known of the alleged publication during the first year and found no evidence that relevant evidence had become unavailable. The judge noted short periods of unexplained delay after McAllister learned of the report, but considered the overall delay relatively short. The Commissioner had not identified specific prejudice.
The judgment describes the alleged report as recording serious convictions and says publication to a professional body and employers could be particularly damaging to a professional. Whether the statements were protected by qualified privilege, and whether the Commissioner was liable for any damage caused by onward publication to employers, remain matters for trial.
The judge concluded that the prejudice to McAllister if denied a remedy significantly outweighed the prejudice to the Commissioner and that the interests of justice required an extension. He said he proposed to make a direction under section 11(2)(c), but would hear the parties on its precise terms. The judgment therefore does not specify the final wording of that direction.