Gilchrist -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd & ors Rogers -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd & ors : Judgments & Determinations : Courts Service of Ireland [2017] IECA 190 (21 June 2017)

Gilchrist -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd & ors Rogers -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd & ors : Judgments & Determinations : Courts Service of Ireland [2017] IECA 190 (21 June 2017)

Irish courts do not follow the English 'Jameel' approach; proceedings may only be struck out as abuse of process where the plaintiff can obtain no benefit or tangible benefit from the claim. The fact that the probable benefit is minimal or disproportionate to costs does not suffice. The claims for defamation in respect of publication to one person are actionable and not an abuse of process.

Citation
[2017] IECA 190
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Patrick Benedict Gilchrist; Plaintiff/respondent: Isabel Rogers; Defendant/appellant: Sunday Newspapers Limited; Defendant/appellant: Colm MacGinty; Defendant/appellant: Nicola Tallant
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Constitutional Right of Access, Inherent Jurisdiction

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Benedict Gilchrist

Plaintiff/respondent

Isabel Rogers

Plaintiff/respondent

Sunday Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Colm MacGinty

Defendant/appellant

Nicola Tallant

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Irish courts have inherent jurisdiction to strike out defamation claims as abuse of process where probable benefit is minimal and disproportionate to costs
  2. 2 Applicability of the English 'Jameel' approach in Ireland

Ratio Decidendi

Irish courts do not follow the English 'Jameel' approach; proceedings may only be struck out as abuse of process where the plaintiff can obtain no benefit or tangible benefit from the claim. The fact that the probable benefit is minimal or disproportionate to costs does not suffice. The claims for defamation in respect of publication to one person are actionable and not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; claims for defamation in respect of publication to Mr. O’Brien on 28th March 2014 may proceed.