No audio recording at centre of defamation row involving Cork racing tipster, High Court told

Robert Heneghan has sued Gearóid Norris for what he said were a number of defamatory publications since March 2025 on Substack and other platforms

Gearóid Norris claimed Robert Heneghan had phoned him and allegedly threatened to kill him by shooting him in the head as well as allegedly threatening his family. This was completely false and there was no such phone conversation, Mr Heneghan said. File picture: INPHO/Dan Sheridan

There is no audio recording at the centre of High Court injunction proceedings relating to alleged defamation by a Cork racing tipster against a businessman in the same industry, a judge was told on Friday.

Robert Heneghan, whose company Pro Sports Advice Ltd is involved in the provision of tips for the horseracing industry, has sued tipster Gearóid Norris, of Harold Place, Mallow, Co Cork, for what he said were a number of defamatory publications since March 2025 on X, Substack, TikTok, and other platforms.

Mr Heneghan brought further injunction proceedings earlier this month seeking the removal of an article Mr Norris had published on Substack.

In the article, Mr Norris claimed Mr Heneghan had phoned him and allegedly threatened to kill him by shooting him in the head as well as allegedly threatening his family. This was completely false and there was no such phone conversation, Mr Heneghan said.

He believed it was published in an "attempt to pressurise me to relent on my decision to institute legal proceedings against him for all the defamatory material he had previously posted online about me".

Last week, Mr Justice Brian Cregan ordered Mr Norris to immediately take down the article and to furnish the alleged recording to Mr Heneghan's lawyers. The judge also granted an order that he not republish any of the material.

On Friday, Tom Murphy, for Mr Heneghan, told the judge the Substack article had been removed but there remained "some remnants" of it online in discussions platforms. 

Counsel said over the next two weeks he would look into how the person who published such articles can also have discussion posts with the material removed.

Counsel said his side had received no recording and there had also been a threat from Mr Norris to republish the Substack article.

Ivan Willams, solicitor, said he was now representing Mr Norris but needed time to file a replying affidavit as he had only received instructions on Thursday.

He said there had been no republication of the article and Mr Norris had sought to shut down the entire account with the platform.

Asked by the judge about the furnishing of the recording to the plaintiff, Mr Williams said: "There is no such recording."

The judge said he was very glad to hear that and it means Mr Norris is not in breach of the court order in relation to it.

He agreed to give the defendant time to file an affidavit and put the matter back to the middle of next month.