Ganley v Raidio Telifis Eireann [2019] IECA 18 (23 January 2019)

Ganley v Raidio Telifis Eireann [2019] IECA 18 (23 January 2019)

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to strike out the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution, granting RTE liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on his affidavits of discovery, and requiring RTE to comply with its own discovery obligations. The judge also correctly refused to strike out paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of RTE's defence, as the threshold for such intervention in defamation pleadings is high and the meanings pleaded were not clearly severable. However, the High Court erred in reserving the costs of interlocutory applications to the trial, as the judge was in a position to adjudicate on costs at the interlocutory stage.

Citation
[2019] IECA 18
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Declan Ganley; Defendant/respondent: Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTE)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation Interlocutory Appeals / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Appeals dismissed except as to costs; appeal on costs allowed.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Costs, Justification Defence, Qualified Privilege
Defamation Civil Procedure Discovery Pleadings Striking Out Pleadings Costs Justification Defence Qualified Privilege

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Declan Ganley

Plaintiff/appellant

Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTE)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation Interlocutory Appeals / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to strike out the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution due to alleged inadequate discovery
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in granting RTE liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on his affidavits of discovery
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in requiring RTE to comply with its own discovery obligations forthwith

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to strike out the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution, granting RTE liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on his affidavits of discovery, and requiring RTE to comply with its own discovery obligations. The judge also correctly refused to strike out paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of RTE's defence, as the threshold for such intervention in defamation pleadings is high and the meanings pleaded were not clearly severable. However, the High Court erred in reserving the costs of interlocutory applications to the trial, as the judge was in a position to adjudicate on costs at the interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed except as to costs; appeal on costs allowed.

Orders

  • High Court orders on discovery, cross-examination, and refusal to strike out defence affirmed.
  • Costs of interlocutory applications to be determined by the High Court judge who heard them, not reserved to trial.