The Court of Appeal dismissed Iconic Newspapers’ appeal over a Limerick Leader article that wrongly identified businessman William Bird as having made tax settlements with Revenue. It also allowed Mr Bird’s cross-appeal on costs, directing that he receive costs on the High Court scale.
The article, published in June 2016, said Mr Bird had reached three settlements totalling €183,595. The settlements were made by three companies: William Bird (Rollercoaster) Limited, William Bird (Sales) Limited and William Bird Tramore Limited. The judgment states that Mr Bird had no involvement with any of them and had made no such settlements.
At trial, journalist Anne Sheridan accepted that identifying Mr Bird as a tax defaulter was an error. She said she had made an honest mistake and had not had time to check every aspect of the list. The newspaper’s defence included qualified privilege under section 18 of the Defamation Act 2009.
On the third day of the High Court trial, the judge ruled that qualified privilege did not apply and refused the newspaper’s application to withdraw the case from the jury. The judge did not decide whether privilege had been lost through malice or recklessness. The jury later awarded Mr Bird €75,000.
The Court of Appeal held that section 18(2) requires mutual duties or interests between the publisher and recipients, and does not generally extend qualified privilege to mass publication. Publication to the public at large could attract the defence only in exceptional circumstances; the newspaper had not established such circumstances. The court said its interpretation also fitted the wider structure of the 2009 Act, including provisions for fair and accurate reports and fair and reasonable publication. It dismissed the newspaper’s appeal on this issue.
On costs, the High Court had limited Mr Bird to Circuit Court costs. The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the exceptional legal question raised by the privilege defence or to how narrowly the jury’s award fell below the threshold for High Court costs. It allowed Mr Bird’s appeal and awarded costs on the High Court scale.
The Court of Appeal’s provisional view was that Mr Bird should receive the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. It gave Iconic Newspapers 14 days to notify the court if it wished to argue for a different order on appeal costs, after which directions would be given for submissions.