The High Court dismissed Michael Lowry’s appeal against a Circuit Court refusal to grant summary relief in his defamation action against journalist Sam Smyth. The ruling did not decide whether the publications were defamatory or whether Smyth’s defences would succeed at trial. It decided that the defences were sufficiently arguable for the claims not to be resolved summarily.
The case concerned remarks Smyth made during a TV3 programme on 24 June 2010 and an Irish Independent article published on 27 May 2010. Lowry said the television remarks suggested he was a thief, corrupt and unfit for public office. He said the article’s reference to property transactions worth about £5 million suggested he had unlawfully benefited from them in connection with a mobile phone licence.
Smyth disputed those meanings and relied on truth, honest opinion and fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. He said the TV remarks referred to tax fraud and business interests paying for refurbishment of Lowry’s home. He said the newspaper article reported that the Moriarty Tribunal was investigating property transactions linked to Lowry, rather than asserting that wrongdoing had been proved.
The Circuit Court had refused Lowry’s application under section 34 of the Defamation Act 2009. On appeal, the High Court treated the hearing as a full rehearing of that application. It applied a high threshold: summary relief was not available if Smyth had an arguable defence with a reasonable chance of success.
The High Court agreed that findings by tribunals of inquiry do not themselves have evidential value in separate court proceedings. But tribunal reports may point to other potential sources of evidence. The judge said Smyth’s defence did not necessarily depend on using tribunal findings as evidence, and that the matters raised could be established through other evidence.
The court also said Smyth could argue that reporting an investigation into possible links to property transactions was not, by itself, defamatory. It concluded that he had a good arguable case in relation to both publications. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and refused relief under section 34. It also said Lowry was not entitled to relief under sections 28, 30 or 33.