Convery v The Irish News Ltd [2008] NICA 14 (10 March 2008)

Convery v The Irish News Ltd [2008] NICA 14 (10 March 2008)

The trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to properly distinguish between statements of fact and comment in the restaurant review, and by not giving adequate directions on the factual substratum required for the defence of fair comment. The sequence and content of the jury questions compounded the confusion, resulting in an unsafe verdict. The appeal is allowed, the order in favour of the respondent is quashed, and a retrial is ordered.

Citation
[2008] NICA 14
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ciarnan Convery; Defendant/appellant: The Irish News Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order in favour of respondent quashed; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Libel, Fair Comment, Justification, Jury Directions, Distinction Between Fact and Comment, Damages, Retrial
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Fair Comment Justification Jury Directions Distinction Between Fact and Comment +2 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ciarnan Convery

Plaintiff/respondent

The Irish News Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the distinction between fact and comment in a restaurant review libel case
  2. 2 Whether the defences of justification and fair comment were properly put to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on the factual substratum required for fair comment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to properly distinguish between statements of fact and comment in the restaurant review, and by not giving adequate directions on the factual substratum required for the defence of fair comment. The sequence and content of the jury questions compounded the confusion, resulting in an unsafe verdict. The appeal is allowed, the order in favour of the respondent is quashed, and a retrial is ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order in favour of respondent quashed; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court in favour of the respondent is quashed.
  • Case remitted for retrial before a properly directed jury.