The High Court has refused Caroline Watson’s application to extend the limitation period for her defamation proceedings against Adelina Campos and MGN Limited, which trades as the Irish Sunday Mirror. The ruling concerned whether the claim could proceed after the usual one-year deadline; it did not decide whether the article defamed Watson.
Watson says she was the “female occupant” referred to in a Sunday Mirror article published on 16 February 2014. The article reported that the daughter of a man convicted of rape had complained to a woman at the house where the crime occurred, who was initially incredulous. Watson says the description suggested she was sympathetic to the rapist, complicit in the rape or its cover-up, or had refused assistance to the victim. Those are her allegations, not findings in this ruling.
Her solicitor complained to the newspaper in July 2014 and later sought the editor’s identity. In a letter dated 3 December 2014, the solicitor said High Court proceedings had been drafted and settled by Senior Counsel and were ready to issue. The defamation summons was issued on 18 June 2015, about 16 months after publication and four months beyond the standard one-year period. Watson then sought a direction extending the limitation period under the Defamation Act 2009.
Mr Justice Max Barrett found the reason for the delay “completely unexplained”. He rejected the effort to identify the editor as justification, saying MGN had been named as publisher in the newspaper and could have been sued within time. The court also considered that the editor’s name could have been added later if needed.
The judge did not accept MGN’s claim that delay had made relevant evidence unavailable. He considered that people connected with the crime, prosecution and article would likely remember them, and found no credible basis to conclude that relevant evidence could no longer be adduced because of the delay.
The court also found that Watson’s prejudice if an extension were refused did not significantly outweigh the prejudice to MGN if it had to defend a claim that could have been brought within the one-year period. No mitigating reason, such as lack of legal advice or serious ill-health, had been presented. The judge concluded that neither the interests of justice nor the wider public interest justified an exceptional extension. He therefore declined the requested direction. The judgment did not determine the underlying defamation claim.