Moyne v Todd & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 81 (19 April 2024)

Moyne v Todd & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 81 (19 April 2024)

The appeal was dismissed because the statements complained of were made in the course of judicial proceedings and are protected by absolute privilege under s.17 of the Defamation Act 2009. The pleadings failed to disclose the necessary elements for malicious falsehood or breach of constitutional rights, and no amendment was proposed that could cure these defects. No valid grounds of appeal were established.

Citation
[2024] IECA 81
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Alan Moyne; Defendant/respondent: Sam Todd; Defendant/respondent: Eugene F. Collins; Defendant/respondent: Paul Dempsey; Defendant/respondent: Abigail Butler; Defendant/respondent: Mark Walsh; Defendant/respondent: Ailish Colgan; Defendant/respondent: Karl Smith; Defendant/respondent: Patrick Mabry; Defendant/respondent: Steve Rodgers
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Malicious Falsehood, Strike Out Applications, Judicial Immunity, Amendment of Pleadings, Constitutional Right to Good Name, Costs
Tort Law Defamation Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Absolute Privilege Malicious Falsehood Strike Out Applications Judicial Immunity +3 more

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Moyne

Plaintiff/appellant

Sam Todd

Defendant/respondent

Eugene F. Collins

Defendant/respondent

Paul Dempsey

Defendant/respondent

Abigail Butler

Defendant/respondent

Mark Walsh

Defendant/respondent

Ailish Colgan

Defendant/respondent

Karl Smith

Defendant/respondent

Patrick Mabry

Defendant/respondent

Steve Rodgers

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to strike out the plaintiff's action as vexatious, an abuse of process, and bound to fail.
  2. 2 Whether absolute privilege under s.17 of the Defamation Act 2009 applies to the statements made in court.
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action for malicious falsehood or breach of constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the statements complained of were made in the course of judicial proceedings and are protected by absolute privilege under s.17 of the Defamation Act 2009. The pleadings failed to disclose the necessary elements for malicious falsehood or breach of constitutional rights, and no amendment was proposed that could cure these defects. No valid grounds of appeal were established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety.
  • Provisional order that the appellant pay the costs of all respondents to the appeal, subject to submissions by 3 May 2024.