Bradley & anor v Independent Star Newspapers [2011] IESC 17 (01 June 2011)

Bradley & anor v Independent Star Newspapers [2011] IESC 17 (01 June 2011)

The trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could not consider evidence of reputation or the subsequent article in determining whether the original defamatory article referred to the plaintiffs. This misdirection deprived the plaintiffs of a fair consideration of the identification issue and constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the verdict and a retrial.

Citation
[2011] IESC 17
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Alan Bradley; Plaintiff/appellant: Wayne Bradley; Defendant/respondent: Independent Star Newspapers Limited; Defendant/respondent: Independent Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation/libel) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Libel, Identification in Defamation, Mitigation of Damages, Pleadings in Defamation, Admissibility of Subsequent Publications
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Libel Identification in Defamation Mitigation of Damages Pleadings in Defamation Admissibility of Subsequent Publications

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Bradley

Plaintiff/appellant

Wayne Bradley

Plaintiff/appellant

Independent Star Newspapers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Independent Newspapers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation/libel) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that reputation evidence could not be considered on the issue of identification in a libel action.
  2. 2 Whether a subsequent publication identifying the plaintiffs is admissible to establish that an earlier defamatory article referred to them.
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of such evidence resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could not consider evidence of reputation or the subsequent article in determining whether the original defamatory article referred to the plaintiffs. This misdirection deprived the plaintiffs of a fair consideration of the identification issue and constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the verdict and a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Verdict of the jury set aside
  • Retrial directed on the issue of identification and admissibility of subsequent publication