The High Court set aside an earlier order allowing prison officer Ronan Taheny to bring defamation proceedings outside the usual one-year limit. It struck out the proceedings after finding that he had not shown the court could permit them within the statutory two-year limit.
Taheny alleged that prison officers Henry Honeyman and Olivia Fox were the source of claims that he and another officer were involved in smuggling contraband, including drugs, into the prison where he worked. He denied the claims and said they damaged his reputation, health and wellbeing. These were allegations in the proposed defamation case, not findings that the statements were made or were defamatory.
Taheny applied for permission on 10 March 2014. The application had been made without notice to the proposed defendants, although the rules required notice. The court had allowed the order to stand subject to a later challenge. On the defendants’ application, Mr Justice Michael Peart decided to reconsider the request as a fresh, on-notice application.
The date Taheny first learned of the allegations was decisive. He said it was 16 March 2012, but a letter from his solicitor to the prison governor, dated 28 June 2012, said he learned of them in a conversation with a colleague on 10 March. Taheny said his former solicitor had made an error. The judge considered that explanation unsupported and found, on the balance of probabilities, that Taheny learned of the allegations on 10 March. The court held that the two-year limit had expired by the time of the application; it had no discretion to extend it, even by one day.
The judge also rejected Taheny’s reliance on fraudulent concealment to postpone the limitation period for earlier statements. He found that Taheny had provided no supporting facts showing concealment of the kind required by law. Even if that argument applied, the judge said, it would not move the date later than Taheny’s discovery of the allegations.
The court considered the delay beyond one year as an additional ground. Taheny said he had pursued an investigation and workplace resolution, relied on solicitors, and did not know about the one-year limit. The judge found these explanations did not adequately justify waiting until March 2014 to seek permission. The judgment concluded by setting aside the ex parte order and striking out the proceedings. It did not determine whether the alleged statements were defamatory or award damages.