The High Court has refused Neil Rooney’s application to extend the time limit for defamation proceedings over a Shell database entry that wrongly said he had been convicted of illegal toxic-waste dumping in Northern Ireland.
Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered judgment on 20 January 2017. The application concerned whether Rooney could bring the claim outside the usual one-year limit. The court could extend that period by up to two years if the interests of justice required it and Rooney’s prejudice from refusal significantly outweighed the prejudice to Shell E&P Ireland Limited.
Rooney had provided goods and services through a company to Shell in connection with the Corrib Gas project in County Mayo. After making a data access request, he received information from Shell in October 2014 that included a March 2014 entry stating that he had been prosecuted and convicted over illegal toxic-waste transport and dumping, and had received a substantial fine. The judgment states that the conviction belonged to another person of the same name.
The court said the entry had been published on 7 March 2014, making the one-year deadline expire around 7 March 2015. Rooney issued his defamation proceedings on 14 October 2015 and served them in January 2016. He said his former solicitor had advised him that the deadline was 15 October 2015. The judge found that he gave little detail about the advice or the instructions he had given, did not explain why proceedings were not issued until October after he instructed new solicitors in July, and did not explain the further delay before service.
The judgment records that Rooney complained to Shell about the entry and that the company invited him to identify the data he wanted corrected, blocked or deleted. The judge was not satisfied that Shell had clearly understood the precise error by mid-November 2014, but considered it on notice that something might be wrong. Rooney’s letter in January 2015 said corrective action could not undo the harm and referred to a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner. The entry was removed in January 2016.
In refusing the extension, the judge weighed the alleged defamation’s seriousness, its apparent circulation within Shell and related organisations, and the company’s failure to remove or investigate the entry promptly. Against those factors, she considered the inadequately explained delay, a possible alternative claim against Rooney’s former solicitor if the alleged advice was given, and the likely application of qualified privilege to at least part of the claim. She concluded that the interests of justice did not require an extension and that Rooney’s prejudice did not significantly outweigh Shell’s loss of its limitation defence.
The ruling was confined to the application to extend time. The judge did not determine the merits of the defamation claim or decide the appropriate procedure for seeking an extension. She refused the relief sought.