Joyce v Mayo Travellers Group & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 84 (10 February 2023)

Joyce v Mayo Travellers Group & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 84 (10 February 2023)

The date of first publication for limitation purposes was when the reports were provided to Ms. Murphy on 24 February 2021. The applicant provided a sufficient explanation for delay, primarily the need to obtain Ms. Murphy’s permission to use the documents. There was no evidence of prejudice to the respondents or that relevant evidence was no longer available. The prejudice to the applicant if the extension was refused would significantly outweigh any prejudice to the respondents. The interests of justice required granting the extension.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 84
Parties
Applicant: Caroline Joyce; First Respondent: Mayo Travellers Support Group; Second Respondent: Edith Geraghty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Bring Defamation Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Defamation Actions, Statute of Limitations, Publication in Defamation, Balancing Prejudice in Limitation Applications
Defamation Limitation of Actions Extension of Time for Defamation Actions Statute of Limitations Publication in Defamation Balancing Prejudice in Limitation Applications

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

Caroline Joyce

Applicant

Mayo Travellers Support Group

First Respondent

Edith Geraghty

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Bring Defamation Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the date of accrual of the cause of action for the purposes of limitation in defamation?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise its discretion to extend time for instituting defamation proceedings beyond the standard one-year period?

Ratio Decidendi

The date of first publication for limitation purposes was when the reports were provided to Ms. Murphy on 24 February 2021. The applicant provided a sufficient explanation for delay, primarily the need to obtain Ms. Murphy’s permission to use the documents. There was no evidence of prejudice to the respondents or that relevant evidence was no longer available. The prejudice to the applicant if the extension was refused would significantly outweigh any prejudice to the respondents. The interests of justice required granting the extension.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to applicant to institute defamation proceedings against the respondents within 7 days of the judgment.