Philpott -v- Irish Examiner Ltd [2016] IEHC 62 (08 February 2016)

Philpott -v- Irish Examiner Ltd [2016] IEHC 62 (08 February 2016)

Neither article nor any statement therein is, in the court's opinion, defamatory of Mr Philpott; both articles are fair and accurate reports of court proceedings and attract absolute privilege under s.17(2) of the Defamation Act 2009; the defence is reasonably likely to succeed; relief must be declined.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 62
Parties
Plaintiff: Dan Philpott; Defendant: Irish Examiner Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application refused; reliefs declined
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Absolute Privilege, Court Reporting, Protected Disclosures, Multiple Publication, Burden of Proof
Defamation Media Law Employment Law Interlocutory Injunctions Absolute Privilege Court Reporting Protected Disclosures Multiple Publication +1 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dan Philpott

Plaintiff

Irish Examiner Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Irish Examiner articles are defamatory of Mr Philpott
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a defence reasonably likely to succeed under s.33 of the Defamation Act 2009
  3. 3 Whether the articles attract absolute privilege as fair and accurate court reports

Ratio Decidendi

Neither article nor any statement therein is, in the court's opinion, defamatory of Mr Philpott; both articles are fair and accurate reports of court proceedings and attract absolute privilege under s.17(2) of the Defamation Act 2009; the defence is reasonably likely to succeed; relief must be declined.

Court Disposition

Application refused; reliefs declined

Orders

  • No interlocutory order prohibiting publication granted
  • No removal of articles ordered