The Court of Appeal has ruled that Declan Ganley and Rivada Networks Limited's defamation action over CNN reports published in October 2020 can continue in Ireland.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald, with Ms Justice Faherty and Ms Justice Butler agreeing, dismissed two appeals brought against High Court orders made in February 2025. The court held that Ireland is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum for the proceedings and also upheld the refusal to strike out the claims against Cable News International Limited and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Limited.
Mr Ganley and Rivada Ireland allege that a CNN International broadcast and CNN.com article on 20 October 2020 suggested that interests associated with them had initiated a corrupt process to secure a US Department of Defense spectrum contract without competitive bidding. The defendants dispute the claim. The publications concerned events in the United States, but CNN accepted that both the online article and television broadcast were published in Ireland for the purposes of Irish defamation law.
CNN and the other defendants argued that the case should instead be heard in the United States, identifying Washington D.C. as the most appropriate forum. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, placing significant weight on the fact that the plaintiffs confined their claim to publication and alleged reputational damage in Ireland. Mr Ganley is an Irish citizen and well-known public figure here, while Rivada Ireland is an Irish company.
The court acknowledged that CNN may need US-based witnesses to run defences including truth and public interest, but found that inconvenience and expense did not outweigh Ireland's connection to the alleged tort.
The court separately rejected an attempt by Cable News International and Turner to have the claims against them dismissed. It held that the evidence did not establish clearly enough, at this stage, that those claims were bound to fail.
Both appeals were dismissed and the High Court orders affirmed. The plaintiffs were presumptively entitled to their appeal costs, subject to any further submissions.