The Court of Appeal has upheld the setting aside of renewed defamation summonses brought by Barbara Naughton against the publishers of the Irish Examiner and the Irish Daily Star. It allowed the publishers’ cross-appeal, finding that Naughton’s failure to disclose an earlier renewal application was an abuse of process. The court also rejected her appeal against the High Court’s conclusion that the evidence did not establish the special circumstances required to renew the summonses.
The claims arose from newspaper reports published in January and February 2016. Naughton said the reports wrongly identified her as a member of a survivors’ group and attributed advocacy for sanctions against people who knew of abuse, including mothers. She said she was not a member of the group and had not advocated sanctions against her mother. She claimed the reports caused distress and contributed to her being cut off by family members. These are the plaintiff’s claims; the appeal concerned renewal of the summonses, not the merits of the defamation claims.
The two summonses were issued in January 2017 but were not served until July 2020. In August 2019, the High Court refused Naughton’s first application to renew them. She applied again in June 2020, relying on medical grounds, and the court granted renewal. The publishers later applied to set that order aside.
The High Court set aside the renewal after finding that Naughton had not shown special circumstances under the rule governing renewal applications made after January 2019. However, it did not set aside the order on abuse-of-process grounds, taking account of her status as a litigant in person. The Court of Appeal held that this was an error: the earlier application had to be disclosed, and being unrepresented did not excuse the omission. It said abuse of process did not require bad faith.
The appeal court also agreed that the medical evidence did not show that Naughton was unable to pursue the proceedings throughout the relevant period. It refused her request to introduce further evidence, finding that it could have been obtained for the High Court hearing and would not establish special circumstances. It also declined to consider new arguments and evidence about her former solicitors.
The Court of Appeal allowed the publishers’ cross-appeal and dismissed Naughton’s appeals. The decision concerned the renewal orders; it did not determine whether the newspaper reports were defamatory.