Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules that the proposed expert evidence from Nobel laureate Dr. Joseph Stiglitz was inadmissible in a defamation and privacy case concerning the publication of the plaintiff's financial activities derived from the Panama Papers, on the grounds that the evidence was not relevant to the issues that needed to be decided as the existence of offshore tax havens and the use of corporate structures for tax avoidance are within common knowledge.
Defamation Act 2009 - fair and reasonable publication - public interest - breach of privacy - Panama Papers - admissibility of expert evidence - tax havens - tax avoidance - corporate structures - transparency - economic effects - market efficiency - qualified privilege - public benefit - journalistic standards - Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) - Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences - information economics - transparency in the international financial system - bearer shares - public policy - media role - stock value impact - objective matters of law - good faith - responsible journalism - defamation action - High Court.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now