Defamation Bill to leave statute of limitations unchanged

Defamation is the strand of law concerning a person’s right to a good name, something they are entitled to defend in the courts.

The Government’s new Defamation Bill is to leave the statute of limitations for taking a defamation action unchanged at one year, despite concerns that this is "too short".

The new Defamation (Amendments) Bill is set to be published by the Department of Justice this week.

Defamation is the strand of law concerning a person’s right to a good name, something they are entitled to defend in the courts.

The new bill is a long-awaited update to the initial 2009 legislation, which is widely seen as no longer being fit for purpose.

The Department of Justice has now confirmed that that statute of limitations for a defamation action is to remain unchanged at one year, with the possibility of an extension to two years.

However, professor of law at Trinity College Dublin and defamation law expert Neville Cox said that in leaving the time period by which an action must be taken in order to be heard unchanged, the new bill will not “remedy arguably the most problematic of the aspects of the current law”.

Prof Cox said that even under the current legislation, one year is likely “too short anyway”.

He explained that the new bill not extending the statute could prove to be controversial given that in terms of defamatory content posted online, the cause of any action begins when that content is first publicly posted and therefore accessible to the public.

“So your limitation period might expire before you are aware of it,” he said.

A spokesperson for the Department confirmed that there is no plan to change the current time limitations, adding that no such change was proposed within the initial General Scheme of the Bill placed before the Oireachtas earlier this year.

The new bill is set to abolish juries entirely for all defamation actions, while introducing measures to deter the taking of  strategic lawsuits against public participation —  so-called 'Slapp' — defamation proceedings, those which are unwarranted and are primarily designed to discourage scrutiny of the powerful.

Experts have speculated, meanwhile, that the bill, in moving so-called Norwich Pharmacal orders from the High Court to the Circuit Court, could save applicants up to €35,000 in costs.

Such orders are used to compel social media companies to disclose the identity of people who are posting on their platforms anonymously.

One practitioner of defamation law said that at present seeking such an order in the High Court incurs costs of €35,000 for each side in any action, with the loser paying the other side’s costs, while the full cost in the commercial courts is far higher, at €100,000 per action.

“I would expect that it would reduce the costs by between 30% and 50%,” one legal expert told the Irish Examiner regarding the monetary value which could be attributed to the Government’s move to bring Norwich Pharmacal orders to a lower court.