Murphy v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [2000] IESC 39 (17th January, 2000)

Murphy v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [2000] IESC 39 (17th January, 2000)

Defendants are entitled to plead partial justification in a defamation action brought by a second plaintiff, even where a previous jury found the same words true of another plaintiff, provided the words are capable of referring to both. The plea is not an abuse of process, and s.22 of the Defamation Act 1961 applies where multiple defamatory meanings are pleaded. There is no requirement to plead s.22 expressly if the material facts are pleaded.

Citation
[2000] IESC 39
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Patrick Murphy; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Andrew Neil; Defendant: Andrew Hogg; Defendant: Barrie Penrose; Defendant: Chris Ryder; Defendant: Rowena Webster
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Justification in Defamation, Partial Justification, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Pleading Requirements, Mitigation of Damages
Defamation Tort Law Media Law Justification in Defamation Partial Justification Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Pleading Requirements +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Murphy

Plaintiff/appellant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Andrew Neil

Defendant

Andrew Hogg

Defendant

Barrie Penrose

Defendant

Chris Ryder

Defendant

Rowena Webster

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal / Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants can plead partial justification in a defamation action where a previous jury found the same words true of another plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plea of partial justification is inconsistent or an abuse of process in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether s.22 of the Defamation Act 1961 applies where the libel consists of a single broad charge or multiple severable allegations

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants are entitled to plead partial justification in a defamation action brought by a second plaintiff, even where a previous jury found the same words true of another plaintiff, provided the words are capable of referring to both. The plea is not an abuse of process, and s.22 of the Defamation Act 1961 applies where multiple defamatory meanings are pleaded. There is no requirement to plead s.22 expressly if the material facts are pleaded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.