The Supreme Court has rejected appeals by Tom Doyle and Times Newspapers Ltd., Rory Godson and John Burns to dismiss two libel actions brought by Dermot Desmond because of delay. The court upheld the High Court’s decision that the proceedings could continue on conditions.
The actions concern a 1998 letter Doyle sent to the Moriarty Tribunal and a Sunday Times article published shortly afterwards. The letter disputed Desmond’s credited role in originating the idea for Dublin’s International Financial Services Centre and claimed Doyle had proposed a similar centre for Shannon. The newspaper article reported the letter’s claims. Desmond alleges the publications were false, malicious and defamatory. Doyle admits sending the letter but relies on qualified privilege and denies malice or reputational damage. The newspaper defendants admit publication but deny that the article was defamatory.
The proceedings began in 1998. After pleadings closed in 1999, there were periods of inactivity, including five years between correspondence in 2000 and a notice of intention to proceed in 2005. The High Court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, but allowed the cases to continue subject to conditions, including that Desmond bear costs from 7 April 2000. The defendants appealed the decision not to dismiss the actions outright.
At the Supreme Court hearing, Desmond accepted the High Court’s findings that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable. The appeal therefore turned on whether the balance of justice favoured continuing the cases or ending them. The Supreme Court said the delay involved three periods: five years, eight months and six months.
The court found the defendants had not established an arguable basis for concluding that the delay compromised their ability to defend the actions or advance their mitigation pleas. No potential witness was said to be unavailable. The court considered the claimed loss of documents in Doyle’s case uncertain: it was unclear whether the documents had existed, and Doyle had made no further effort to clarify the position.
The court also considered that the defendants had not sought dismissal until October 2007, despite later notices and discovery requests. It concluded that the defendants’ capacity to defend the claims had not been compromised to the point that a fair trial was in peril. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s unappealed costs condition. It said the other High Court conditions did not arise at that stage. The underlying libel claims were not decided by this ruling.