Ward & anor -v- The Donegal Times Ltd & anor [2016] IEHC 711 (08 November 2016)

Ward & anor -v- The Donegal Times Ltd & anor [2016] IEHC 711 (08 November 2016)

The court found that the articles were defamatory of the plaintiffs, causing serious harm to their reputations. The apology and offer to make amends were late and inadequate, and subsequent publications undermined the sincerity of the apology. The court awarded general damages to compensate for the injury, with limited mitigation for the offer to make amends, and declined to award aggravated damages based on the subsequent articles.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 711
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Ward; Plaintiff: Sean Quinn; Defendant: The Donegal Times Limited; Defendant: Liam Hyland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Assessment of Damages Following Acceptance of Offer to Make Amends Under Defamation Act 2009
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs. Damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages, Aggravated Damages, Offer to Make Amends, Apology, Mitigation
Tort Law Media Law Defamation Damages Aggravated Damages Offer to Make Amends Apology Mitigation

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Ward

Plaintiff

Sean Quinn

Plaintiff

The Donegal Times Limited

Defendant

Liam Hyland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Assessment of Damages Following Acceptance of Offer to Make Amends Under Defamation Act 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published articles were defamatory of the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of damages, including aggravated damages, under the Defamation Act 2009
  3. 3 Effect of the defendants' offer to make amends and apology on mitigation of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the articles were defamatory of the plaintiffs, causing serious harm to their reputations. The apology and offer to make amends were late and inadequate, and subsequent publications undermined the sincerity of the apology. The court awarded general damages to compensate for the injury, with limited mitigation for the offer to make amends, and declined to award aggravated damages based on the subsequent articles.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs. Damages awarded.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay general damages to each plaintiff for defamation.
  • No aggravated damages awarded based on subsequent articles.