knowledge 15 October 2025 |

Defamation update: Irish High Court provides guidance on key factors in jurisdictional challenges and applications to strike out

In a recent judgment, the High Court allowed a defamation case to be heard in Ireland and denied the defendants’ application for a stay of the proceedings, which they argued should be brought in the United States (“US”), by reference to the principle of forum non conveniens.

The judgment also considered a separate motion brought by the defendants seeking to strike out the proceedings, under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“RSC”) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.¹

The judgment concerned defamation proceedings brought by Mr Declan Ganley and his telecommunications firm, Rivada Networks Limited (“Rivada”) against Cable News Network Inc. (“CNN”), Cable News International Ltd and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd. The plaintiffs allege that CNN defamed them on foot of a CNN report that suggested “the Department of Defence in the USA came under pressure from the Trump White House to award a lease of mid-band spectrum to an entity described in the news story as “Rivada”.”²

Judgment of Mr Justice Garrett Simons

The Defendants’ Application for a Stay on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens

The defendants submitted that the news article referred to a US registered company known as Rivada Networks Inc and that the events, the subject-matter of the alleged defamation, are all connected to the US. Therefore, the defendants argued that the US, where the first named defendant is incorporated, was a more appropriate forum to hear the case. The plaintiffs submitted that the news articles referred to a wider group of companies including the second named plaintiff, which is an Irish registered company. They contended that the companies are identified with the first named plaintiff, Mr Declan Ganley, who is an Irish citizen, and asserts that he is habitually resident in the Irish State. The plaintiffs opposed the application, arguing that the claim in the US is now statute-barred and that US defamation laws are less favourable to plaintiffs than domestic laws.

Justice Simons rejected the defendants’ application for a stay on the proceedings, noting that the plaintiffs cannot initiate proceedings in the US due to the expiration of the one-year statute of limitation period.

Justice Simons found that the matter has a strong connection to Ireland as Mr Ganley is an Irish citizen residing in Ireland and Rivada is an Irish-registered company. Justice Simons noted that the claim was limited to the loss and damage caused by the publication within Ireland and CNN broadcasts to consumers in Ireland. He also noted that it would be unjust to stay the proceedings in Ireland as it would deny the plaintiffs access to the courts in either jurisdiction.

Justice Simons said that while the foreign forum not being available to the plaintiff due to the expiration of a limitation period is a “significant consideration to be weighed in the balance, it will not always be the decisive consideration.” He further elaborated that it is appropriate to consider the plaintiffs’ “reasonableness” in pursuing proceedings before the Irish Courts, without having taken the precaution of issuing a protective writ in the foreign forum, and he concluded that the plaintiffs had acted reasonably in confining themselves to instituting proceedings before the Irish Courts, and in not issuing a protective writ in Washington, DC.

The Defendants’ Motion to Strike out the Proceedings

The defendants sought to strike out the proceedings as against the second and third named defendants, Cable News International Ltd and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd. They alleged that these entities were joined to resist the application to stay the proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Furthermore, they claimed that these entities did not have a role in the creation of the broadcast and article and should be considered mere distributors entitled to the defence of "innocent publication" under section 27 of the Defamation Act 2009. The Court observed the importance of distinguishing between the jurisdiction to strike out and/or to dismiss proceedings pursuant to (i) Order 19 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, and (ii) the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.³

An Order 19, Rule 28 of the RSC application requires the Court to determine whether the case as pleaded discloses any cause of action. The Court here found that it would be inappropriate to determine these issues in a peremptory manner and the resolution of same will have to await the trial of the action, or possibly the trial of a preliminary issue on an agreed set of facts.

In contrast, in examining the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, the Court may consider the underlying merits of a case, to a very limited extent. The Court here remarked that all a plaintiff needs to do to defeat such a submission is to put forward a credible basis that at trial, it may be possible to establish the asserted facts that are necessary for success in the proceedings. The Supreme Court has consistently stated that the existence of the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings as being “bound to fail” is not a mechanism for requesting the Court to resolve issues on a summary basis.⁴

The Court noted that there was a potential overlap between the functions carried out by the three defendants and that liability for the publication and republication of a defamatory statement is not confined to the entity who created that statement. The Court therefore determined that it could not at this stage conclude which of the CNN defendants are responsible for the publication of the allegedly defamatory statements in this jurisdiction. The Court further observed that a strike out application is not appropriate where the issues of law raised are not “straightforward”.⁵

The Court dismissed the defendants' request to strike out the proceedings on a summary basis against the two associated CNN companies, stating that such a determination would require findings of fact and statutory interpretation, which are more appropriate for trial.

Conclusion

This High Court decision demonstrates some of the criteria a Court will take into account when assessing forum non conveniens, including in this instance, access to justice. The Court concluded that it “would be unjust to stay the proceedings before the Irish Courts as it would result in plaintiffs, who are unblameworthy, being denied access to the courts in either jurisdiction.” The decision further confirms that factors such as a plaintiffs’ citizenship and residence or status as an Irish-registered company are relevant to establishing a ‘strong connection to Ireland’, as is whether the specific harm alleged occurred within Ireland.

The judgment also highlights the Court's unwillingness to summarily dismiss claims without comprehensive consideration of the facts and relevant statutory interpretations at trial. The Court awarded the plaintiffs their legal costs of the application.

The High Court judgment is under appeal.