A defamation action by Galway-based businessman Declan Ganley and his Rivada telecommunications firm against international news broadcaster CNN should be heard in Ireland, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons rejected an application by CNN for a stay on the proceedings in Ireland, on the basis that the US is the more appropriate forum for the hearing and the case has nothing to do with this country if there is an alternative forum available.
The judge found it was too late for Mr Ganley and Rivada to institute proceedings before the courts of the mooted foreign forum, Washington, DC.
This was because the one-year limitation period has expired and the defendants were not prepared to waive the limitation period, he said.
‘The constant curse of Dublin’: Marlborough Street is prime example of urban neglect
Whisper it quietly, but Simon Easterby is the perfect fit for Welsh rugby
Trump’s adoption of imperial manner is a function of failure
Regretting working outside the home: ‘We’re told to parent like we don’t work. And work like we don’t parent’
“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,” he said.
Atlanta-registered CNN is being sued over a report suggesting the first Trump administration pressured the Department of Defence to award a multimillion contract without a competition for the lease of mid-band spectrum to an entity described in the news story as “Rivada”.
Mr Ganley and Rivada claim they were “maliciously” defamed in the story broadcast and published on the internet on October 20th, 2020.
Along with CNN, two associated companies, Cable News International (CNI) Ltd and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd, both London registered, are also being sued.
They deny defamation and say the story is, in substance, true, and relates to a matter of public interest. This is a defence that they say is available in such cases in both Ireland and the US.
Mr Ganley and Rivada also contended that the rules in relation to defamation under US law are less favourable to a plaintiff than those under domestic law.
Mr Justice Simons had adjourned the matter to allow both sides file expert evidence on foreign law.
In a judgment on Tuesday, he said while the meaning and effect of the news story will be a matter for the court of trial, it was sufficient to say that, in relation to references to the award of a lease to an entity described in the story as “Rivada”, that the parties are in disagreement as to whom this description refers.
The defendants argued it referred to a US registered company known as Rivada Networks Inc, while Mr Ganley and Rivada submitted it referred to a wider group of companies – including Rivada, which is an Irish-registered company.
The judge said it can reasonably be said that these proceedings have a strong connection to the Irish State, that Mr Ganley is an Irish citizen habitually residing here and that Rivada is an Irish-registered company.
It can also be said their claim is restricted to loss and damage caused by publication within the Irish State, and that the CNN group broadcasts to consumers within this State.
“It certainly cannot be said that either the federal courts or local courts in Washington, DC represents such an obvious alternative forum that the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in failing to issue a protective writ there”, he said.
The judge also said the defendants had invited the court to determine, on a summary basis, that there is no reasonable cause of action against the two CNN associated defendants, Cable News International (CNI) Ltd and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd.
To do so would necessitate the court making findings of fact and deciding issues of statutory interpretation and it would not be appropriate to do so, he said.
The resolution of these issues will have to await the trial of the action or, possibly, the trial of a preliminary issue on an agreed set of facts before the main trial takes place, he said.
Mr Ganley and Rivada, having been entirely successful in resisting the defendants’ applications, are entitled to recover their legal costs against the defendants, he said.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
