Quinlavan -v- O'Dea [2009] IEHC 187 (20 April 2009)

Quinlavan -v- O'Dea [2009] IEHC 187 (20 April 2009)

The plaintiff failed to establish clear evidence that the defendant made a false statement of fact as required by s. 11 of the 1923 Act, and the evidence did not support a fair issue to be tried regarding the utterance of the alleged slander. The admitted statement by the defendant did not amount to a statement of fact but at most gave rise to an innuendo, and any damage had already occurred. There was no established risk of repetition, and the balance of convenience and the need to protect free speech outweighed the plaintiff's case. The motion for interlocutory injunction was refused.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 187
Parties
Plaintiff: Maurice Quinlivan; Defendant: Willie O’Dea
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (slander) / Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Motion for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Slander, Interlocutory Injunction, False Statement in Election, Section 11 Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act 1923, Freedom of Speech, Balance of Convenience
Defamation Electoral Law Civil Procedure Slander Interlocutory Injunction False Statement in Election Section 11 Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act 1923 Freedom of Speech +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maurice Quinlivan

Plaintiff

Willie O’Dea

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (slander) / Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made a false and defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff's ownership of an apartment used as a brothel
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain repetition of the alleged slander
  3. 3 Whether an injunction should be granted under s. 11(5) of the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act 1923

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish clear evidence that the defendant made a false statement of fact as required by s. 11 of the 1923 Act, and the evidence did not support a fair issue to be tried regarding the utterance of the alleged slander. The admitted statement by the defendant did not amount to a statement of fact but at most gave rise to an innuendo, and any damage had already occurred. There was no established risk of repetition, and the balance of convenience and the need to protect free speech outweighed the plaintiff's case. The motion for interlocutory injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Motion for interlocutory injunction refused