The High Court awarded Peter Casey €120,000 in damages and a further €20,000 in aggravated damages over a Facebook post by Kim McMenamin describing a proposed accommodation project in Buncrana as akin to human trafficking and inhumane.
Mr Justice Nolan delivered the judgment on 4 December 2024, after judgment had already been entered against McMenamin in default of appearance. The hearing was to assess Casey’s damages. McMenamin did not enter an appearance or defend the proceedings.
The post, published on 25 April 2023, said members of the Buncrana Community Watch group had visited the proposed provision centre at Ludden and spoken to workers. It described the intended residents as “unvetted people” who would be “warehoused in office cubicles for profit”, and called the arrangement akin to human trafficking and inhumane.
Casey brought the defamation action, arguing that the post conveyed that he planned to house migrants in unsuitable and inhumane conditions, treated people like animals, and prioritised profit over welfare. The court found that the intended residents were women and children fleeing Ukraine, that the accommodation was not like office cubicles, and that Casey and his company did not intend to make a profit. It found the proposed arrangement was not human trafficking or inhumane, and that the words were untrue and defamatory.
The judgment recorded that the post had 181 reactions, 45 comments and was shared 180 times. The court also considered evidence that it remained online until sometime between June and August 2024, despite a court order to remove it. The judge said the defamatory remarks had remained in place for at least nine months after that order.
The judgment addressed a fire at Ludden House on 11 May 2023. It stated there was no evidence that McMenamin caused the fire, and that Casey did not claim he had. The judge considered McMenamin’s later posts about the fire, including his call for people to share information about it, as part of the damages assessment.
The court awarded €120,000 in damages and €20,000 in aggravated damages. It also said it would make the orders sought under section 30 of the Defamation Act 2009. The judgment does not specify those orders in the text provided. The decision followed the earlier default judgment; it was not a contested trial of liability.