‘The effect of a defamatory comment…
was like taking a pillow of feathers and opening it at the top window of the GPO
and thereafter, releasing the feathers
and then trying to run around and collect the feathers that had blown to the four winds.’
Ralph Sutton, SC
Background
The Plaintiff, Mr Peter Casey, is a well-known County Donegal businessman entrepreneur and former presidential candidate. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Mr Casey converted his Buncrana property, Ludden House, to make it suitable for Ukrainian women and children, fleeing from the devastating effects of the Russian invasion. He also announced that any profit from the rental of his property to the government would be redistributed to the people of Donegal and Ukraine.
The defendant, Kim McMenamin, a Buncrana resident published a Facebook post on 25th April 2023, describing the housing of refugees at Ludden House as ‘akin to human trafficking and inhumane’ and likening his treatment of refugees to that of animals.
Tragically, on 11th May 2023 a fire occurred at Ludden House. The following day McMenamin remarkably posted a photograph of the damage to the upper story of the house to his Facebook page.
After seeing the post, Mr Casey wrote to McMenamin and requested the post be removed on the basis it was defamatory and untrue. After receiving no response, proceedings were issued in June 2023. McMenamin made no attempt to defend his position and thus a judgement was granted and a hearing set to assess damages.
Defamation and Damages
Following a judgement against the defendant, Mr Justice Nolan was satisfied that the claims were untrue. He stated Ludden House was of a good standard of accommodation and that Mr Casey had acted in a genuine manner to alleviate the suffering of Ukrainian women and children. Mr Justice Nolan was also satisfied the claims were defamatory, given the reach which McMenamin has on his Facebook page, citing a quote from Ralph Sutton SC on the far-reaching effects of defamatory content, particularly when posted online.
In assessing damages, Mr Justice Nolan noted the defendant had a fine reputation in society which was harmed by the defamatory remarks and the length of time they remained online. €120,000 was awarded as the damage fell within the medium range damage. Further aggravated damages of €20,000 were awarded for the failure of McMenamin to engage with the proceedings and remove the post despite the judgement in default.
Consequences
Ralph Sutton’s remarks are ever more relevant in an increasingly connected world of social media. With increased reach comes increased accountability. The award of damages in this case serves as a sobering reality of publishing defamatory content particularly online. On the facts of this case, defamation laws and the damages awarded against wrongdoers are a crucial deterrent to the spread of false and damaging information, protecting the reputation of those unjustly targeted.
If you have any queries relating to this article, or would need legal assistance with any defamatory case, please contact authors below.
