Bird v Iconic Newspapers Ltd (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 62 (20 March 2024)

Bird v Iconic Newspapers Ltd (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 62 (20 March 2024)

Qualified privilege under s.18(2) of the Defamation Act 2009 does not extend to mass media publications to the public at large except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here. The publication was not protected by qualified privilege as there was no mutuality of interest or duty between the publisher and the general public regarding the inaccurate information. The trial judge erred in refusing a special certificate for High Court costs, as the legal issue was exceptional and the award was marginally below the High Court threshold.

Citation
[2024] IECA 62
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: William Bird; Defendant/appellant: Iconic Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on qualified privilege; appeal allowed on costs issue.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Defamation Act 2009, Costs in Defamation Proceedings, Publication to the Public at Large, Fair and Accurate Reporting
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Qualified Privilege Defamation Act 2009 Costs in Defamation Proceedings Publication to the Public at Large Fair and Accurate Reporting

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bird

Plaintiff/respondent

Iconic Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication by Iconic Newspapers was protected by qualified privilege under s.18(2) of the Defamation Act 2009
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing High Court costs to the plaintiff despite the jury award being at the upper limit of Circuit Court jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Qualified privilege under s.18(2) of the Defamation Act 2009 does not extend to mass media publications to the public at large except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here. The publication was not protected by qualified privilege as there was no mutuality of interest or duty between the publisher and the general public regarding the inaccurate information. The trial judge erred in refusing a special certificate for High Court costs, as the legal issue was exceptional and the award was marginally below the High Court threshold.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on qualified privilege; appeal allowed on costs issue.

Orders

  • The appeal by Iconic Newspapers on the issue of qualified privilege is dismissed.
  • The appeal by Mr. Bird on the costs issue is allowed; a special certificate for High Court costs is granted.