High Court: Access to Justice a Key Factor in Jurisdictional Disputes

Introduction

In a notable recent judgment, the Irish High Court has ruled that a defamation action against Cable News Network Inc. (“CNN”) will be heard in Ireland, rejecting an application to strike out proceedings and an attempt to move the case to the United States (“US”).

Background

Irish businessman Mr Declan Ganley and his telecommunications company, Rivada Networks Limited (“Rivada”), are suing CNN over a news report.

The CNN report suggested that the Trump White House pressured the US Department of Defence to award a valuable spectrum lease to Rivada. Mr Ganley and his company claim this report damaged their reputation.

Where Should the Case be Heard?

CNN argued that the case should be heard in America, not Ireland. Their reasoning was that:

• The report discussed a US registered company

• The events took place in the US

• CNN is an American company

However, Mr Ganley and Rivada wanted to keep the case in Ireland. They pointed out:

• Mr Ganley is an Irish citizen living in Ireland

• Rivada is registered in Ireland

• The lawsuit focuses on damage caused by the broadcast within Ireland

• CNN broadcasts to Irish viewers

• It's now too late to file the case in the US due to America's one-year deadline for defamation claims

 The Court's Decision

Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled that the case will stay in Ireland. He found strong connections to Ireland through Mr Ganley's citizenship and residence and Rivada's Irish registration.

Importantly, he noted that it would be unfair to deny the plaintiff’s access to justice in both countries simply because the US time limit had expired. The judge also found that Mr Ganley had acted reasonably by filing only in Ireland rather than filing protective legal papers in both countries.

Should Some Defendants Be Removed?

CNN also tried to remove two of its associated companies from the lawsuit: Cable News International Ltd and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd. CNN claimed that:

• These companies were only added to make the Irish jurisdiction argument stronger

• They didn't create the broadcast

• They were merely distributors and should qualify for "innocent publication" protection under Irish law

 The Court's Decision

Mr Justice Simons rejected this request. He explained that Irish courts handle these matters in two ways:

First, when considering whether the lawsuit states a valid legal claim, the court found it would be inappropriate to make quick decisions on complex issues. These questions need proper examination at trial.

Second, even using the court's broader powers to dismiss obviously hopeless cases, the judge found the plaintiff’s had presented credible arguments. There was potential overlap in what the three CNN entities did, and responsibility for defamatory statements isn't limited to whoever originally created them. The court couldn't determine at this early stage which CNN companies were responsible for publishing the allegedly harmful statements in Ireland.

The judge emphasised that strike out applications are not appropriate when the legal issues are not straightforward and require detailed fact finding.

What This Means

This decision clarifies what Irish courts consider when deciding if a case should be heard in Ireland or abroad:

• The plaintiff's citizenship and residence

• Where the company is registered

• Where the alleged harm occurred

• Whether the plaintiff has realistic access to justice elsewhere

The ruling also highlights that Irish courts won't dismiss cases quickly without thoroughly considering the facts and legal questions at trial. CNN has appealed the Judgement.

Further Information

For expert legal advice about defamation matters, please contact Ciarán Leavy, Partner or Rory Knight, Solicitor in our award-winning Litigation & Dispute Resolution Team.