High Court refuses an application for an interlocutory injunction to remove two articles published online by a newspaper, which the applicant claims are making it difficult for him to find employment, on the grounds that the articles do not contain any defamatory statements, and that the defence of absolute privilege is both open to the newspaper and likely to succeed.
Injunctions – application to remove articles on newspaper website – publication of articles making difficult for him to get employment – freedom of speech - when a court is entitled to make an order prohibiting the publication of a defamatory statement - test to a matter of judicial opinion - should be no doubt but that the words complained of were defamatory - definition of defamatory – relevant test - chronology of events – Circuit Court determined that he had not made a protected disclosure pursuant to Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 – relevant articles – inaccuracies and divergences do not involve a statement that would or does injure his reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society – applicable law - court has to be satisfied that the material complained of was unarguably defamatory - burden of proving the defamatory nature of the material complained of rests on the plaintiff - prove not merely that there was a serious question to be tried, but that her/his case is absolutely clear – prove that no defence reasonably likely to succeed - burden of proving the existence of a defence that is reasonably likely to succeed rests with the defendant - nothing in the technology-neutral wording of the provision to suggest that internet publications fall to be treated differently from other publications – importance of Court reports - privilege afforded Court reports - court reports that are “fair and accurate” attract privilege – principles governing court reports - date on which the articles are to be treated as having been published - defence of absolute privilege is open – no defamatory statements.