The High Court has upheld an order transferring a defamation action from the Circuit Court, finding that related proceedings between the same parties should be managed together in the High Court. It directed that both cases be listed before the judge in charge of the Defamation List for case management, including consideration of consolidation or a joint trial. It did not decide the underlying defamation claims.
Mr Justice Paul Burns gave judgment on 25 April 2023 on an appeal by Eoghan Harris from a Circuit Court order made on 8 December 2022. The order sent forward his action against Aoife Moore under section 22(8)(a) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961.
Harris’s Circuit Court action, begun by Civil Bill dated 13 September 2021, seeks damages for defamation and other relief. It concerns a tweet by Moore about messages she said she received from a Twitter account named Barbara J Pym. Harris alleged that the tweet falsely suggested he had sent her sexualised communications privately. Moore admitted making the statement and that it could bear some of the meanings pleaded, but denied that it was defamatory and pleaded truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege as defences. Those matters remain allegations and pleaded positions, not findings in this appeal.
Moore had earlier brought separate High Court proceedings against Harris and Twitter International Company. Those proceedings concern tweets allegedly published through the Barbara J Pym account between April 2020 and May 2021, which Moore claimed formed part of a campaign of defamation against her. The judgment records that Harris had not yet delivered a defence in that case at the time of the appeal.
Justice Burns said the two actions concerned different statements but had a significant link and overlap in context. The issues in Moore’s High Court case were central to her pleaded response in Harris’s action, and the Circuit Court case was likely to raise complex questions about defamation defences and statements made in response to alleged defamation. The judge considered that hearing the matters together in one venue could reduce expense and use court time more efficiently.
Harris’s counsel cited his poor health and sought an expeditious hearing and lower litigation costs. The judge acknowledged those concerns. Moore’s counsel undertook to progress her High Court case with expedition and, if Moore successfully defended Harris’s claim, not to seek costs in that action beyond those recoverable in the Circuit Court. The judge accepted the expedition undertaking and noted the costs undertaking.
Justice Burns confirmed the Circuit Court transfer order. He awarded Moore the costs of the appeal, reserved the costs of the Circuit Court application, and stayed execution of the appeal costs order until the proceedings are determined or the court orders otherwise.