Print this page

Live Radio Programming - A recipe for Defamation Disaster?

The perils of "live" radio programming are evident in the proceedings currently being taken by Minister Martin Cullen against RTE.

The proceedings arise out of comments made by a caller into Joe Duffy's afternoon "Liveline" show in December 2004 suggesting an adulterous affair between the Minister and PR consultant Monica Leech. The comments, which have been acknowledged by RTE to have been "simply untrue", have already cost the national broadcaster €250,000 plus costs following the settlement of Ms Leech's action against it, as reported by Tim O'Brien in the Irish Times of 10 May 2007. Clearly, the bill is going to continue to mount up.

It is fair to say, therefore, that RTE should welcome with open arms the enactment into law of the Defamation Bill 2006, or at the very least Part 4 thereof. It is this part of the Bill that introduces new remedies for plaintiffs in defamation actions beyond the traditional one of damages. For example, section 26 of the Bill allows a plaintiff to apply for a declaratory order that a statement made by the defendant is untrue and defamatory. The procedure for applying for the order is uncomplicated, and makes for much more speedy resolution of such cases than pertains at present. Of course, whether plaintiffs will be content to opt for speedy resolution in lieu of potentially substantial damages remains to be seen.

Defendants in defamation actions will also welcome Part 4 of the 2006 Bill because it extends the lodgement mechanism, which has long been available in other civil proceedings, to such actions. Thus, by virtue of section 27 of the Bill, a defendant will have the option of lodging a sum of money into court in satisfaction of the defamation claim against him. It will be for the plaintiff to decide whether to accept it, but in refusing it he or she will bear the risk of paying the defendant's costs should the eventual award fail to exceed the lodgement.

It is certainly not the case that the 2006 Bill tips the balance entirely in favour of defendants. For example, defamation actions will still be heard by juries, which have tended to give very substantial awards in favour of plaintiffs in defamation actions, particularly where the plaintiff is a person with the profile of, say, a government minister. There is also provision made for aggravated and punitive damages, though this merely represents a consolidation of pre-existing law.

Ultimately, the purpose of the new innovations in Part 4 of the 2006 Bill is to increase the settlement of defamation actions outside of the courthouse, rather than to favour one party or the other. What remains to be seen is whether the new mechanisms in the Bill can compete successfully with plaintiffs' determination to have "their day in court", as well as the allure of the possibility of very substantial damages in defamation actions.

If you believe that you have a legal claim relating to this story, please contact Malcomson Law by calling 01 8744422 or by filling out an Online Enquiry Form. A solicitor who specialises in this area will contact you to advise you of your legal rights and entitlements.

This news section contains stories of interest from publicly available news sources. Where we are representing the clients referred to in the news material we will say so. Where we do not represent individuals or bodies mentioned or quoted, the inclusion of the news story in our news section is not intended nor should it be taken to imply that we act for the individual or body concerned.