Quinn loses bid to strike out Tribune defence

QUINN Insurance Group has lost a High Court bid to strike out parts of the Sunday Tribune’s defence in forthcoming libel proceedings over articles alleging it recruited gardaí to approach solicitors to offer them bonuses on their fees to recommend reduced settlements to clients in cases against Quinn Direct.

Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne yesterday ruled the defendants had provided adequate details of its plea of justification for the article and also sufficiently set out the nature of the public interest being relied upon to justify the article.

The judge was ruling on a preliminary application in proceedings by Quinn Insurance Ltd (QIL), Quinn Group Ltd (QGL), group founder Sean Quinn and Kevin Lunney, a senior executive with QGL and former senior executive with Tribune Newspapers, over articles published in the Sunday Tribune on April 1 and April 8, 2007.

The plaintiffs are alleging libel and intentional infliction of economic damage against Tribune Newspapers Plc, Noirín Hegarty, editor of the Sunday Tribune and two journalists Conor McMorrow and Michael Clifford.

The judge noted the articles complained of were headlined: “Revealed: how gardaí and solicitors helped Ireland’s richest man make millions” with a sub-heading: “Confidential internal memo outlines how: A panel of senior gardaí relay detailed background information to Quinn Direct; Garda panel offer plaintiff solicitors a bonus to recommend early settlements in cases against firm.”

She noted significant reliance by the defendants on a document purporting to be an internal memo written by Mr Lunney in October 2001, the authenticity of which was a matter of serious dispute between the sides.

Ms Justice Dunne said a party was only entitled to know the “broad outline” of the case they will meet. She said she had no doubt the defendants would find it extremely difficult to identify names and addresses of gardaí allegedly employed by QIL.

However, she said the plaintiffs, especially QIL, must be aware how its business was conducted and she was not of the view the absence of the information they sought amounted to “trial by ambush”.