The High Court on Circuit allowed two Wicklow councillors’ appeals in defamation cases against former county manager Edward Sheehy and Wicklow County Council, awarding each €20,000 in damages.
Ms Justice Baker’s judgment, delivered on 10 July 2017, concerned a council press release issued on 23 April 2013 about an independent review of the compulsory purchase of land at Charlesland, Greystones. The councillors, Thomas Cullen and Barry Nevin, had appealed an order of the Circuit Court dismissing their claims.
The release said the review had rejected the councillors’ allegations and that delays caused by the review had cost the council about €200,000 in foregone interest and administrative costs. The councillors argued that the words suggested they were responsible for the review and its costs, incompetent in their public duties, and unfit to hold office. The council denied that the release was defamatory and relied on defences including truth, qualified privilege and honest opinion.
The judge found that readers would understand the release to blame the councillors for a significant financial loss and to suggest their concerns were raised irresponsibly and without good reason. She found that meaning damaging to their reputations as public representatives.
The court did not accept that the claim of a loss of about €200,000 had been established as true. The judge considered the evidence pointed to a figure closer to €100,000, while even that estimate depended on an unproven assumption that central funding would have been available. She also found that the Minister, rather than the councillors, made the decision to commission the review. Their representations had prompted it, but the review’s commissioning caused the delay.
The judgment said the review’s findings did not establish that the councillors had acted in bad faith or raised irresponsible concerns. The court noted that the review involved detailed examination, explanations and expert assistance not available to the elected representatives. It also found the council had not shown that its press release was protected by qualified privilege, or that the impugned statement qualified as honest opinion.
The court allowed both appeals and proposed damages of €20,000 for each councillor. It said their purpose was public vindication and that damages were a secondary consideration. The judgment did not determine whether Nevin’s loss of his council seat at a later election was attributable to the newspaper coverage.