The High Court has refused BuzzFeed UK Ltd’s application to have an Irish defamation case brought by Tony Robbins dismissed or stayed on jurisdictional grounds. Mr Justice Mark Heslin ruled that the court could hear the claim for damage alleged to have occurred in Ireland under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Recast Regulation.
The ruling concerns jurisdiction only. It does not decide whether the articles were defamatory, whether BuzzFeed UK is liable, or whether Robbins will succeed at trial. The court also made no final order on costs.
Robbins issued proceedings in November 2019 over a series of BuzzFeedNews.com articles published in May, June and November of that year. The articles reported allegations of sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment. Robbins’s claim seeks damages for defamation and other alleged wrongs, as well as an injunction. He denies the allegations. His summons limits the claim to damage suffered within the Irish court’s jurisdiction.
BuzzFeed UK argued that it was not the proper defendant, that Ireland had no jurisdiction, and that the United States was the more appropriate place for the case. It said BuzzFeed Inc. owned and operated the website and controlled editorial decisions. The judge said the question of whether BuzzFeed UK was the proper party was a substantive issue for trial, not one to decide on this application. The defendant did not dispute that the journalists who wrote the articles were its employees at the time.
A key issue was whether the articles had been published in Ireland. In a September 2020 letter, the defendant’s solicitors said their client did not contend that there had been no publication in Ireland. The letter reported 13,382 online views by users geolocated in Ireland by the date proceedings began, out of more than 3.55 million views worldwide. The judge treated those figures as evidence of access in this jurisdiction for the purpose of the motion. He emphasized that this was not a finding on publication for the eventual trial of the defamation claim.
The court held that Article 7(2), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, allowed a claim limited to local damage where online content was accessible in the state concerned. The judge also found that the reported readership figures established access for the purposes of this application. He rejected the argument that the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens could displace jurisdiction established under the Regulation.
The court refused the relief sought in BuzzFeed UK’s motion. It directed the parties to discuss the final form of the order, including costs; if they could not agree, they were to file short written submissions within 21 days.