Moyne v Todd & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 172 (02 July 2024)

Moyne v Todd & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 172 (02 July 2024)

The application to review the main judgment is declined as no coherent reason was provided to revisit the earlier judgment, regardless of the standard applied. The respondents are awarded their costs of the appeal as the entirely successful parties, with no valid grounds for departing from the ordinary rule.

Citation
[2024] IECA 172
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
02 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Review and Costs Ruling
Outcome
application to review declined; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Malicious Falsehood, Costs, Constitutional Compatibility, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Defamation Absolute Privilege Malicious Falsehood Costs Constitutional Compatibility Abuse of Process

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 15 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

Appeal / Post Judgment Review and Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should review/revisit its main judgment before the order is perfected
  2. 2 Whether absolute privilege under s.17 of the Defamation Act, 2009 is compatible with the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether pleadings could be amended to advance a claim for malicious falsehood

Ratio Decidendi

The application to review the main judgment is declined as no coherent reason was provided to revisit the earlier judgment, regardless of the standard applied. The respondents are awarded their costs of the appeal as the entirely successful parties, with no valid grounds for departing from the ordinary rule.

Court Disposition

application to review declined; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Respondents awarded costs of the appeal, to be measured in default of agreement