knowledge 25 March 2026 |

Defamation Law Update: Ganley v. CNN Inc

On Friday 13 March, the Irish Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court in Ganley v. Cable News Network, Inc¹ (available here), finding that Ireland is the most appropriate forum for the hearing of the proceedings, and refusing to dismiss the proceedings as against the second and third named defendants.

Our previous briefing (available here) considers the High Court decision the subject of the appeals, in which Mr Justice Simons allowed the defamation case to be heard in Ireland, denied the defendants’ application for a stay of the proceedings and refused to strike out the proceedings as against the second and third named defendants.

There were two appeals before the Court of Appeal.  The first appeal related to the High Court’s refusal of the defendants’ application to set aside service of the plenary summons on the defendants out of the jurisdiction.   The second appeal related to the refusal of the High Court to strike out the case as against Cable News International Ltd (“CNIL”) and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd (“Turner”), the second and third defendants.

In relation to the second appeal, Mr Justice McDonald noted that the strike-out application was brought on the grounds that (1) the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action against CNIL and Turner and that the claims are frivolous or vexatious and (2) CNIL and Turner sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was bound to fail.

With regard to the first ground, Mr Justice McDonald explained that as the defendants’ application was issued prior to 22 September 2023, it was to be assessed under the version of Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts which existed prior to the enactment of SI No. 456/2023 Rules of the Superior Courts (Order 19) 2023. He explained that under this version of the rule the court proceeds on the basis that the allegations made in the pleadings are true and no regard is had to additional evidence on affidavit. As no attempt was made, either in the defendants’ oral or written submissions to argue that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action against CNIL and Turner, Mr Justice McDonald agreed with the High Court’s decision to reject this aspect of the defendants’ application. 

As mentioned above CNIL and Turner also sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Court confirmed that the court’s jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised, and more readily invoked in document-dependent cases than in cases which turn on oral testimony, and that in an application of this kind, the defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that it is clear that the plaintiffs cannot succeed in their case against CNIL and Turner.

The defendants suggested that there was no evidence at all to support the plaintiffs' case as to involvement by CNIL and Turner in the publication at issue. However, Mr Justice McDonald took the view that even on the defendants’ own evidence, this was far from clear, and was satisfied in the circumstances that the High Court was correct to refuse the application by CNIL and Turner to strike out the proceedings as against them.  The appeal in relation to this aspect of the High Court’s decision was therefore dismissed.

In relation to the appeal against the High Court’s decision to allow the proceedings to be heard in Ireland, the Court observed that the defendants’ challenge to the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts is based on the contention that the courts of the United States and, in particular, the courts of the District of Columbia, are a more appropriate forum than the courts of Ireland.  The Court noted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v Quinn² (“IBRC”) makes clear that, the Court should first seek to determine whether there is another more appropriate forum than Ireland for the resolution of the underlying dispute.  If the Court is satisfied that there is another more appropriate forum, the Court is then required to consider whether the respondent to the application has put forward any sufficient basis for suggesting that justice nonetheless requires that the proceedings should be tried in Ireland. As the High Court judge omitted to apply this two-stage test, the Court of Appeal considered de novo the issue as to appropriate forum.

The Court therefore reconsidered the merits of the jurisdictional challenge, but in doing so, reached the conclusion that Ireland is the most appropriate forum. Mr Justice McDonald recognised that there were obvious connecting factors with both the United States and with Ireland. Relying on the judgment in IBRC, he concluded that it was necessary to weigh in the balance the competing factors that point towards each forum.

He took the view that the fact that the plaintiffs have confined themselves to a claim in respect of the publications which occurred in Ireland strongly points towards Ireland as the appropriate forum in which to litigate their claim, given that it meant that the relevant tort (if there was one) occurred in Ireland and that Irish law applies to it.  The fact that the alleged tort occurred in Ireland (not just publication but the alleged causing of reputational harm also) was a “weighty factor in favour of Ireland as the appropriate forum”. 

The judge acknowledged certain factors in favour of the U.S.: the cost and inconvenience associated with calling witnesses based in the U.S., the facts underlying the subject matter of the impugned publications is predominantly focused on events alleged to have taken place in the U.S., and the public interest in revealing the story was most relevant in the context of the U.S.

The Court also reiterated that the fact that a plaintiff may be deprived of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage in a foreign forum, such as a more favourable limitation period or a more plaintiff‑friendly legal environment, is not a factor to be weighed in the balance in determining which forum is more appropriate.

However, the Court noted that the key factors that weighed in favour of Ireland as the appropriate forum were that publication occurred in Ireland, and the plaintiffs alleged that their reputations were damaged in Ireland, such that the tort (if there was one) occurred here. The Court noted that while this is described in the case law as a starting point (and the Court referenced in this regard VTB Capital plc v. Nutritek International Corporation),³  it will also, the Court noted, in many cases prove to give the final answer on the question as to whether jurisdiction should be appropriately exercised.

The decision provides further clarity on the application of the two‑stage IBRC test, and the judgment provides strong authority for an Irish Plaintiff resisting a forum non conveniens application. It confirms that where the alleged reputational harm occurs remains an important consideration that can be determinative in these disputes. It also confirms that inconvenience will not outweigh this factor, particularly in the absence of evidence that the challenging party’s ability to mount a defence would be impaired.

Also contributed to by Daniel O'Leary