Limerick solicitor fails in defamation bid against communications adviser

Environmental campaigner alleged damaging comments were posted about her on social media platform X

Limerick solicitor and environmental campaigner Michelle Hayes. 

A Limerick solicitor and environmental campaigner has failed in her High Court defamation action against a communications adviser whom the lawyer alleged had posted damaging comments about her on social media platform X.

Solicitor Michelle Hayes of Glentworth St, Limerick, sued communications adviser Emma Gilleece, with an address listed as Blackhall Place, Dublin 7, over the publication of what she alleged were defamatory words on the defendant's Twitter account, now X, between 2020 and 2022.

At the High Court, a unanimous jury decision rejected Ms Hayes's claims of online defamation.

Ms Gilleece, an architectural historian, had denied the claims taken against her by Ms Hayes.

Ms Hayes, represented by Hayes Solicitors in Limerick, where she is a partner, said that in June 2020 Ms Gilleece had, on Twitter, accused her of "bullying and threats".

Plaintiff Ms Hayes contended that the words used in Ms Gilleece's tweets "in their natural and ordinary meaning and by means of innuendo" were understood to mean the plaintiff had engaged in "bullying in her professional affairs".

Ms Hayes submitted that she is entitled to her good name, which she values, and that as a solicitor she particularly relies upon her reputation.

Former chairperson of the Limerick branch of An Taisce, the national trust for Ireland, Ms Hayes alleged that Ms Gilleece tweeted in October 2020 that a group called Environmental Trust Ireland, of which Ms Hayes is a founding member, "unfairly" "bullied" its way to get a place on the Limerick Public Participation Network.

That network endeavours to enable the community to be represented in the decision-making processes on Limerick City and County Council committees.

Regarding a 2023 tweet by Ms Gilleece, Ms Hayes alleged that a reference to a solicitor taking an action against the defendant referred to her.

Ms Hayes submitted that the tweet referred to her abusing her “skills as a solicitor” by taking court proceedings.

Ms Hayes had initiated two defamation proceedings against Ms Gilleece — in 2021 and 2023 — claiming that she had no other option but to do so. 

Ms Hayes sought damages and her costs for bringing the actions.

In his charge, Mr Justice Oisín Quinn had asked the jury to consider if posts by Ms Gilleece carried the meaning that Ms Hayes engaged in "bullying and threats in the conduct of her business and professional affairs".

Mr Justice Quinn, reading out the jury's verdict — who deliberated for two-and-a-half hours — said there was a unanimous answer of 'no' to this question.

The jury was also asked by Mr Justice Quinn if Ms Hayes had been individually identified, as alleged, in Ms Gilleece’s impugned tweets.

The jury, said the judge, unanimously found that Ms Hayes had not been identified, as claimed.

Regarding the 2023 action taken by Ms Hayes over further tweets, Mr Justice Quinn told the jury that a post by Ms Gilleece in August 2022 should be considered in terms of “meaning”.

The jury was asked to consider if Ms Gilleece meant in that tweet "the plaintiff [Ms Hayes] wrongfully used litigation to cause the defendant to be in fear of speaking and to prevent her speaking".

Mr Justice Quinn said the jury had also unanimously responded ‘no’ to the question of the plaintiff’s claim that she was being accused of wrongful litigation.

Applications regarding the costs of the case will be addressed in November.