A & Anor v E, C & D (Approved) [2026] IECA 56 (17 April 2026)

A & Anor v E, C & D (Approved) [2026] IECA 56 (17 April 2026)

A media organisation affected by an ex parte reporting restriction order is entitled to be heard in relation to the making or continuation of that order. The High Court erred in law by failing to recognise Mediahuis's standing to question the order. The right to be heard is not illusory and must be meaningful, including access to sufficient information to participate in the review of the order.

Citation
[2026] IECA 56
Parties
Plaintiffs: A. and B.; Defendants: E., C. and D.; Appellant/applicant: Mediahuis Ireland Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Standing (locus Standi), Ex Parte Orders, Anonymity Orders
Media Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Standing (locus Standi) Ex Parte Orders Anonymity Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. and B.

Plaintiffs

E., C. and D.

Defendants

Mediahuis Ireland Limited

Appellant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a media organisation affected by an ex parte reporting restriction order has standing to be heard in relation to that order
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to allow Mediahuis to be heard or to access information sufficient to challenge the reporting restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

A media organisation affected by an ex parte reporting restriction order is entitled to be heard in relation to the making or continuation of that order. The High Court erred in law by failing to recognise Mediahuis's standing to question the order. The right to be heard is not illusory and must be meaningful, including access to sufficient information to participate in the review of the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the High Court for rehearing of Mediahuis's application to be heard in relation to the reporting restrictions.
  • Parties to engage on the final form of order and costs within two weeks; if unresolved, matter to be listed for submissions on final order and costs.