The High Court has dismissed four motions by Dana Rosemary Scallon seeking to make TV3 contribute to or cover her costs in two defamation cases brought by her relatives. The court ruled on procedural grounds and did not decide whether TV3 should bear any of those costs.
The cases were brought in 2011 by Susan Gorrell and Susan Stein over an interview Ms Scallon gave to TV3 in October that year. TV3 settled with the plaintiffs and apologised in open court in June 2014. The claims against the broadcaster were struck out by order of Mr Justice Peter Kelly that day, while the claims against Ms Scallon continued.
The plaintiffs later failed to provide security for costs ordered by the Court of Appeal. In July 2021, the High Court struck out their claims against Ms Scallon on her application. She then sought to have TV3 joined as a third party so she could claim contribution or indemnity for her defence costs, and also asked the court to order TV3 to pay costs.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore found that TV3 had been released from the actions in 2014. He rejected Ms Scallon’s argument that an allegedly inaccurate form of the 2014 order meant the broadcaster remained a party. Read as a whole, the order concerned the claims between the plaintiffs and TV3; the accompanying transcript showed that the claims against Ms Scallon were continuing.
The judge also refused permission to join TV3 as a third party. He found that Ms Scallon could have served a notice seeking contribution or indemnity before the 2014 settlement, but did not. She gave no explanation for waiting until 2021 to take steps to bring TV3 back into the actions. The delay of more than seven years was fatal to the application, the judge said.
A separate request for costs under Order 16, Rule 12 was also refused because TV3 was neither a defendant nor a third party in either action. The judge said the court had no basis in the applications to award the costs of a party against someone who was not a party to the proceedings.
The judgment did not determine the merits of Ms Scallon’s contention that TV3 should cover her costs. The judge said it would be inappropriate to express a view because separate proceedings against the broadcaster had been raised as a possibility. The four motions were dismissed, with costs to be decided when the matters next came before the court.