The High Court has refused an application by the Irish Racehorse Trainers Association to withdraw six of seven statements in a defamation action from the jury, finding there was evidence on which jurors could decide issues including malice, publication and whether remarks referred to the plaintiff.
The ruling, by Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton, concerned the stage of the trial at which the judge decides whether the evidence is sufficient for claims to be left for the jury. It did not decide whether the surviving statements were defamatory or whether the association was liable. Those issues remained for the jury.
The judge refused to withdraw claims relating to five statements for which the association relied on qualified privilege, and one statement in an interview published by The Irish Field on 9 August 2014. The plaintiff had conceded that five statements were published on occasions of qualified privilege. The remaining question for those claims was whether evidence could support a finding of legal malice, which could defeat that defence.
For the August interview, the court found evidence from which jurors could conclude that Noel Meade, then chairman of the association, spoke on its behalf and that readers understood the remarks to refer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff still had to prove both points. The judge said the jury would decide them; the court’s ruling was that the evidence was sufficient to leave the claim before them.
The judge also refused to withdraw the claim concerning statements made at a meeting at the Keadeen Hotel on 15 August 2014. He found evidence that association representatives arranged and attended the meeting knowing the Doyles’ complaints about the plaintiff were likely to be repeated to Turf Club representatives. He concluded there was sufficient evidence of malice for the jury to consider the qualified-privilege defence.
The court reached a different conclusion on the alleged petition to remove the plaintiff as head of security for the Turf Club. It found insufficient evidence that such a petition had been drawn up or published. Draft letters prepared by association representatives were not, the judge found, a petition seeking the plaintiff’s removal. That claim was withdrawn from the jury.
The ruling also refused to withdraw the first, second, sixth and seventh statements. The judge said jurors could consider the statements and surrounding events together when assessing whether the association’s professed belief in the Doyles’ allegations was honest or whether its conduct showed indifference to the truth. The court did not itself find that the association acted maliciously; that question remained for the jury.