Judgment: 2018-06-08 · Court archive

High Court upholds €5,000 award over pub’s counterfeit-note accusation

On the defendant’s appeal, the High Court found that a barman’s public accusation about a €10 note was defamatory and that any qualified privilege was defeated by excessive publication.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 352

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Leonard Nolan (Plaintiff)
What

On the defendant’s appeal, the High Court found that a barman’s public accusation about a €10 note was defamatory and that any qualified privilege was defeated by excessive publication.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Rathmines
  • Grace’s Pub
  • Rathmines Garda Station
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court accepted Mr Nolan’s description of what happened at the bar as more probable on the balance of probabilities. It found that at least four people were close enough to hear and see the exchange, and that the publication was defamatory. The judge was not certain Mr Nolan had attended the Garda station, but said that uncertainty did not change his conclusion about what was more likely to have happened at the bar.

The High Court has upheld a €5,000 Circuit Court damages award to Leonard Nolan in his defamation action against Laurence Lounge, trading as Grace’s Pub, over an exchange about a €10 note in April 2013.

Mr Nolan said that when he offered the note for a drink, the barman, Mr Bond, held it aloft and loudly called it “fake” or “dud” in front of customers. He said the note was returned to him and that, after going to Rathmines Garda Station, he came back to the pub and was again refused service and asked to leave. Mr Bond disputed the account of the exchange, including that he spoke loudly or asked Mr Nolan to leave. He said he examined the note and believed it was counterfeit.

The High Court accepted Mr Nolan’s description of what happened at the bar as more probable on the balance of probabilities. It found that at least four people were close enough to hear and see the exchange, and that the publication was defamatory. The judge was not certain Mr Nolan had attended the Garda station, but said that uncertainty did not change his conclusion about what was more likely to have happened at the bar.

The defendant argued that the note was counterfeit and relied on both truth and qualified privilege. The court held that the evidence did not establish that Mr Nolan had possessed or tried to pass counterfeit currency, so the defence of truth failed. It also held that a defendant may, in an appropriate case, plead truth and qualified privilege in the alternative.

The court considered the defendant’s claim to qualified privilege in light of the circumstances and the extent of publication. It found that the accusation was made loudly and the note held aloft when Mr Bond could have reported his concern to gardaí or dealt with Mr Nolan less publicly. The repeat exchange after Mr Nolan returned to the pub was not a sudden situation arising without notice. The court concluded that any privilege was defeated by unreasonable and excessive publication, although it noted that the audience was limited.

The appeal was dismissed and the Circuit Court’s €5,000 award was upheld. The High Court judgment was delivered by Mr Justice MacGrath on 8 June 2018.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review