The High Court has added James Corcoran as an individual co-defendant in proceedings brought by Keith Duffy over the use of Duffy’s image on advertising billboards. The decision allows the case to address questions about Corcoran’s role, but makes no finding that he is personally liable or that the underlying claim is established.
In a judgment delivered on 14 May 2025, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill granted Duffy’s motion to join Corcoran under the Rules of the Superior Courts. Duffy’s claim for damages remains to be determined. An interlocutory injunction made in December 2024 had required MSCL Limited, trading as Medica Stem Cells, to remove images and references to Duffy from its billboard campaign. The judgment says that order appears to have been complied with, following an application for attachment and committal.
Duffy argued that Corcoran had been the person handling the company’s legal proceedings and may have been responsible for the use of the image and failures to comply with court orders. The company opposed the motion, saying Corcoran had acted as an employee, there was no individual cause of action against him, and joining him would improperly set aside the company’s separate legal identity.
The judge said the threshold for joinder was low and the court should not determine the merits of defences on a procedural motion. She pointed to conflicting accounts about the company’s directorship and management, including discrepancies between an affidavit by Adrian Pronczak and a company filing, and the timing of Corcoran’s employment. The judgment also noted that Ciara McCann had withdrawn an earlier statement to the High Court that her signature on company documents may have been forged.
Cahill said those matters raised questions about responsibility and authority that required fuller examination. She made no findings about the accuracy of the disputed accounts, any alleged forgery, the company’s governance, or whether the corporate veil could be set aside. The judge concluded that Corcoran’s presence could help the court resolve all issues and was also relevant to protecting his own rights, particularly as the company’s evidence appeared to distance itself from his role.
The court provisionally considered that the company should pay Duffy’s costs of the motion. Either party could submit written arguments on costs by 20 May 2025; a hearing was listed for 22 May for any submissions and final costs orders. The judgment does not state what final costs order was made.