Gerard P. Craughwell
Labour Panel · Independent · Ireland
“I omitted to formally congratulate the Leader yesterday on his elevation. I assume there will be bonfires all over Tipperary as he arrives home this weekend. I ask him to please forgive me for not officially congratulating him. I will say a few words at the start at our Presidency of the European Union.”
“It sends a confused and troubling message about hierarchy, authority, respect and the place of the Defence Forces within our nation's life. This matters.”
“The decision to have the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, a civil servant, however reputable, take the salute from newly commissioned officers before handing them their commission represents a deeply inappropriate blurring of roles. Let us be clear.”
“I say to the 64th naval cadet class in their achievement that they remain significant, their commitment remains admirable and their future responsibilities remain vital.”
“It is simply unacceptable that not one Minister or Minister of State of the 38 available was present to officiate at the commissioning of new officers into the Naval Service. I remind colleagues that this is not a minor diary clash or an administrative oversight; it is a profound signal of disregard for the State's most loyal servants.”
“It is an honour for me to extend my congratulations to the 64th naval cadet class on their commissioning into the Naval Service. Their commissioning should be a moment of unambiguous pride for them, their families and the State they have chosen to serve.”
The complete record
Every one of 631 lines we hold for Gerard P. Craughwell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“I will not hold the Minister of State for too long. In 2015, we brought a Commencement matter to this House on class K PRSI, which county councillors were paying. We - four county councillors and I - were forced to go to the High Court on the class K case. Immediately, the Minister changed county councillors to class A PRSI. They did not make it retrospective and, by not making it retrospective, they have hurt the social welfare record of many county councillors who will not now qualify for a contributory old age pension. If they do, they will qualify for a reduced old age pension. I ask the Minister of State to look at that. I commend Senator Frances Black. She has always been a great supporter of county councillors. She has gone around the country to meet them and knows exactly what they want.”
“It happened because we are sitting on our hands and saying nothing. The Opposition is saying nothing. It is the Opposition that holds the Government to account. Why are its members not speaking out? We are watching the decline of defence and security in this country. Wake up. The Portuguese, the French and the PSNI provided security for Zelenskyy's visit. We have a police force, an Army, an Air Corps and a Navy. They are all defunct. Let us wake up and start talking about security.”
“Is there anybody in the Oireachtas who gives a continental damn about the proud sovereign State we are supposed to be? I am not blaming the Government any more. This is an Oireachtas issue. We are sitting on our hands. These things are happening behind our backs. Why can we not be honest and come forward and talk about the security of the State? Danny McCoy issued a statement this morning. It is on the RTÉ website for anybody who wants to read it. He talks about the risk to our foreign direct investment, FDI, due to our negligence - I am talking about all of us in this House - in the area of security and defence for this country. We will lose the goose that is laying the golden egg. FDI will walk out of this country and we will find ourselves in here procrastinating about how it happened.”
“The Cathaoirleach and the Ceann Comhairle presided over bravery awards last Friday. I am deeply honoured to point out that my niece's husband, Eoin Clancy, was one of the recipients of an award. Among my family, Eoin now holds a similar and equal award to the one my father received in 1942. My father is also commemorated in Blackrock in Salthill for saving human life. My father got a Carnegie Hero Fund Award, while Eoin received his award from the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach. We are extremely proud of him. I spoke yesterday about the issue of drones and security during President Zelenskyy's visit to Ireland. I was horrified to open my computer yesterday evening and find in The Journal that the people who provided security for Zelenskyy's visit to Ireland were the Portuguese, French and PSNI police forces.”
“This is nonsense, absolute nonsense. We need to have a debate in this House. I did already ask for the Minister for Defence to come in. I want the Minister to come in as a matter of urgency. Let us have an open and honest debate.”
“Was there co-operation between An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces with respect to aid to the civil power? Many questions need to be answered, and they need to be answered in a public forum, not in some Cabinet room and not in some back room of this House. It needs to be in public. The public need to be reassured that this State is a safe place. Imagine the embarrassment if the leaders of the governments of the EU 27 refused to come here for a summit because this State is not safe? We really need to get our act together. Four years ago, the Commission on the Defence Forces reported and absolutely nothing visible has been done. We are talking about going to procurement now for anti-drone equipment. This is being done now in December 2025, when we are taking over the Presidency of the EU in July 2026.”
“During the visit of President Zelenskyy, Ireland was lucky. The drones out in the Irish Sea could have been a catastrophe for the arrival of the President of Ukraine. What would that have done for Ireland? It would have highlighted the abuse or neglect of the Defence Forces and Ireland's defence and security by the Houses of the Oireachtas and not just the Government. Parties in this House have been involved in the Dáil and Seanad since 1998 when we started to run down the Defence Forces to where they are today. There is much speculation in the media about why the drones were not shot down. Firing 7.62 mm calibre ammunition into the air where civilian aircraft are flying is nonsense. Are there rules of engagement and, if there are, where are they? I am not aware of any rules of engagement.”
“If I were a taxi driver and I were being screwed like this, I would urge people to move away from the provider and to find one that would treat them in a fair and comprehensive way. I thank the Minister of State for his time.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply from the Department. When tabling this matter, I was aware that the Department has the NTA to oversee the industry, if one wants to put it like that. I thank the Minister of State for taking this matter, which I raised in order to discuss this matter of public concern. From what I understand, the fixed-price system used is not to the benefit of the consumer. Rather, it is to the benefit of the operator. Based on what we have heard today, first and foremost, could the NTA carry out a review immediately? I appreciate the fact that the NTA cannot be involved in a contract between a driver or service provider and a call centre.”
“This, I believe, is repugnant to the whole idea of deregulation. I understand the system in the UK is that some of these large companies are running a bidding competition for every trip. While the plan was to deregulate the system, these two issues are running against the notion of competition. One is the rental of a taxi plate. It should be one plate for one family - simple as that, or one plate for one driver. There should not be a capacity for anybody to own more than one plate and with regard to those who do own them, we should review the regulations and get back to a situation where every driver owns his own plate, or her own plate as the case may be. The other one then, of course, is the bidding. By all means, bid for runs but if you do, pass it on to the consumer. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.”
“I can pick up the phone or go to my app and hail a taxi, and that is fantastic but let us take an example I was given last week. A person booked a taxi from one of the platforms to go to Dublin Airport from Cabinteely. The cost of the taxi was quoted at €66. The person agreed to the charge outlined for them. What happened then? The company involved contacted the taxi drivers and said, "I have a trip from Cabinteely to Dublin Airport and I am offering €30 for it. Who wants to take it?". If nobody takes it at €30, it will increase it to €35. If nobody takes it at €35, it will increase again. Effectively, what we have is the very people who could introduce competition to the system by asking drivers to bid for runs are taking the fixed price and giving a greatly reduced price to the driver, making absolutely massive profits for themselves.”
“If I can rent a plate from somebody and stick up some sort of a form on my window, is anybody going to stop me and check that I have actually qualified to drive the car? Who allowed one individual to purchase 200 plates and rent them out at exorbitant sums like €10,400 a year? It is an enormous sum for somebody who does not even drive a taxi. We find that there are taxis on the road 24 hours a day, as two people may choose to rent the same plate or share the rental of the plate. Every person has a right to earn a living and that includes taxi drivers, so I have no difficulty with taxi drivers and the rates they charge. However, in recent years we have seen the growth of taxi call centres. Freenow was the first one into the country and Uber is here now. They are great services.”
“Many drivers effectively work the first three days of the week just to pay the cost of running the car. When deregulation was brought in, the idea was to create more competition in the industry and to make taxis better value for money for ordinary citizens. I understand, anecdotally, that there are individuals in this city who hold 100 or 200 plates, some of whom are absent landlords living outside the State. This raises fundamental questions. Is this consistent with the original rationale for deregulation? How can we be sure those who are driving taxis have the necessary qualification, have passed the public service vehicle test, are properly insured and meet the safety standards?”
“The Minister of State is very welcome. This is my first time to address him since he was re-elevated and I congratulate him on that. I am delighted to see him in post and am sure that the people over in north west are also delighted to see him in post as well. Recently I spoke in this House about a serious matter concerning the taxi industry and today I would like to address the current regulatory issues affecting the industry. I raised serious concerns in the House about companies holding up to 200 taxi plates and renting them out at rates of between €100 and €200 per week. Just last week I travelled in a taxi whose driver was paying €200 per week to rent a plate. That is €10,400 per year before vehicle maintenance, insurance, rental and fuel costs are factored in.”
“Ireland has used neutrality as a way of not spending money on defence, and has exposed this country to the diabolical situation it is in today, where we are incapable of defending ourselves. I ask the Leader to bring the Minister for Defence and for Foreign Affairs and Trade into this House and let us have an open and honest conversation about neutrality. Give the citizens what they need. Tell them exactly where we stand and stop playing games with words that have no meaning in customary international law.”
“We have given €100 million for humanitarian care. We should give €100 million and let Ukraine do whatever it feels it needs to do that best suits its needs. The time has come for an honest discussion on our posture in the world. At the start of the Ukrainian war, the Minister for Defence and Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney, took it upon himself to declare Ireland was not neutral in the case of the Ukrainian war. Has it ever been debated in this House? Has there ever been a debate in the Oireachtas as to exactly where we stand? The people of Ireland are entitled to know where we stand because, by our actions, we put the country in peril. At the end of the day I am fully supportive of Ukraine and of a credible neutrality that is capable of defending the country the way it needs to be defended.”
“I join others in complimenting the staff of Leinster House. Wonderful work was put in by all of our colleagues and those who look after our needs. I also compliment the Cathaoirleach on his speech, which was a wonderful tour de force . However, the visit gives rise to questions on the issue of Ireland's position in the world. We go on with this nonsense about military neutrality and political neutrality, but there are no definitions of such concepts in international law. Customary international law recognises neutrality and non-neutrality. The essence of being neutral is that where two belligerents are at each other's throats, you stand by and let them at it. You do not offer any support whatsoever. I believe we should support Ukraine in every way we possibly could, but we should do it in an honest way.”
“We met them recently in Grangegorman. However, there needs to be a more open debate on security, defence and where we are going. We need to counter the article in the Financial Times. It made the front page of the Financial Times in the United States. Leaving aside our European brothers and sisters and our American brothers and sisters, the citizens of the State themselves are now ahead of Government thinking when it comes to defence and security. I will have more to say on this, as I know the Deputy Leader knows I will, in the coming days and weeks.”
“I know the Deputy Leader engages with Defence Forces people all of the time and so do I, and that tends to be a bubble you are within. What really bothers me is that, now, ordinary members of the public are speaking to me. Neighbours are stopping me to ask me what is going on with defence, what is happening and are we at risk. They will equally throw in the neutrality thing and question the triple lock and all of these things. The key issue is that people feel the State is vulnerable. How right they are. If you sever one of the electricity interconnectors between the UK and us, people will lose power and likely lose their lives because hospitals will run out of electricity. If you damage the gas connectivity, what will that do to the country? In fairness to the flag officer in the navy, he has seen green shoots and a lot of recruitment.”
“I know what I am about to speak about is something the Deputy Leader cares dearly about, given her constituency. I know her commitment to the Defence Forces and to all things defence. I am sure that she is as outraged as I am about the Financial Times article, "How Ireland became the weak spot in Europe's defences". We have been talking about defence in this Chamber for ten years. For ten years I have been constantly talking about defence, and where are we? We are getting worse and worse. We have people talking about the massive increase in the defence budget. There is no massive increase in the defence budget. I will come here with genuine figures in the not-too-distant future, because I have the figures going back to 2022, on how the defence budget has changed. In some years it regressed rather than increased. That is deeply worrying.”
“To think the fee is not going into the hands of the family man or woman driving the car is, for me that is anti-competitive. I will be writing to the competition authority today to see if it is prepared to look into it. We should have a debate in this Chamber on the whole issue of transport.”
“We brought in deregulation to encourage competition and now competition is being undermined in two areas, one of which is single owners owning multiple plates and renting them out. The second is the introduction of a new system on the part of one of these call companies. I understand that the system these companies are using in the UK is such that when you ring for a taxi, you get a quote for, say, £25. The company then puts out a message to drivers saying there is a trip from A to B and offers £10, and if there are no takers, it might increase it to £10.50. Eventually, the company gets a taxi driver who will go for maybe £12 and pockets the rest. I hope that is not going to be allowed in this country. Taxis are expensive. We have all used them and we use them all the time because we have to.”
“Last week, I spoke about companies that are holding up to 200 taxi plates and renting them out at a cost of between €100 and €200 per week. There will be a major taxi drivers' strike in Dublin tomorrow. It will finish out on Merrion Square. Why? We have all become familiar with the various companies we can use to get a taxi. One of those companies has introduced a new way of dealing with drivers. A case in point was given to me today. The company in question quoted €66 for a taxi trip from Cabinteely in Dublin to Dublin Airport, which is about right. It then put out a message to taxi drivers that it was prepared to offer a driver €30 to do the trip. They are ripping off taxi drivers.”
“I think it is about €500 or €5,000 - it is somewhere between those two figures - and you can make a living out of it. If you pay for the maintenance of your car, insurance and rent, you are probably working the first three days of the week for nothing. It is gross exploitation. There is also the story that some taxis are on the road 24 hours a day. A driver gets out of the taxi at 6 p.m. and somebody else gets in, gets out of the taxi at 6 a.m. and hands back over at 12 noon. It is totally unacceptable. We need to know taxis are regulated properly, drivers are insured properly and they have the necessary qualifications to be a taxi driver in any city in this country. I ask the Deputy Leader to take that up through the party system and perhaps her colleagues in Fine Gael might do the same.”
“Who in God's name ever allowed one individual to own 200 taxi plates and rent them out at a cost of €10,000 per year? One hundred plates at €10,000 per year is an enormous amount of money and yet most of the Members of this House will know it can be extremely difficult to get a taxi in Dublin because plates are not being issued. Every person has a right to make a living but the rationale for taxi plates was one plate for one driver to make a living, but where somebody has 100 plates, there is something wrong. If the story is true that there are people with 200 plates who are absentee landlords, the plates should be cancelled straight away and the people renting those plates should be able to go to the taxi regulator and buy a plate.”
“The Deputy Leader will be aware, as will the Cathaoirleach and many other Members of the House, taxi deregulation was brought in to increase competition and make the taxi service, particularly in the bigger cities, more available. I travelled in a taxi last week and the driver was renting the plate for the taxi. It cost him €200 a week. That is €10,000 a year. I understand anecdotally that there are people in this city who have 100 and 200 taxi plates they rent out. Some are absentee landlords - they do not live in the State. There are questions to be asked. Is that contrary to the raison d'être or rationale for deregulation? How sure can we be that those driving taxis in this city have gone through the SPSV test and are safe drivers? How sure can we be they are fully insured?”
“----- and I could show it was a misuse of the system, I could get damages for that and, more importantly, my legal team could get top-of-the-range fees for it. Is there a case to be made for criminal charges against somebody who uses the court system to frustrate what is legitimate comment? I am talking about the public domain. I will come back in a few minutes with something else. I am interested in the Minister's answers on those points.”
“The threats often did not proceed to trial but served as legal intimidation tactics to discourage publication. There is also the case between a well-known politician and media outlets. The politician initiated defamation proceedings against newspaper reporting. The allegation was that the proceedings were initiated purely to silence the media. It is a serious situation if we can introduce litigation purely to silence comment or what we believe is unfair comment. From that point of view, I am happy the Minister said in his presentation that if a defamation case was taken against me, for example, that was only designed to shut me up for a period of time-----”
“The best example we have is "Prime Time Investigates" but in print media, there is very little by way of genuine investigative reporting, in my view. There was another case taken between a voluntary group and developers. It was an environmental NGO that was involved. Community activists faced defamation threats from a developer when opposing a planning project. Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network's submission to the justice committee highlighted that as a classic example. I think the Minister was a member of the committee at that time. There are several examples of journalists threatened with defamation suits and one that related to one particular gender group. Irish journalists investigating corruption and misconduct were threatened with defamation cases by several very powerful figures.”
“There is a very high-profile businessman in this country who, between 2015 and 2018, took a case against The Irish Times . He brought multiple defamation proceedings against media outlets following the coverage of financial dealings. The suits were widely criticised as attempts to intimidate journalists and chill reporting on matters of public interest. I have not named the individual. I do not believe I should, at this stage. Even though some of the claims were unsuccessful, the litigation consumed significant resources and created a chilling effect on investigative reporting. One of the things I find - the Minister is in politics like I am - is that there is very little of what used to be investigative reporting in this country.”
“When it comes to Report Stage, is there any chance the Minister would stop in section 34A(d) at "the use in bad faith of procedural tactics" and leave that discretion to the Judiciary and let the Judiciary make up its mind as to what is and is not bad faith and what are and are not procedural tactics? If we look at it from a plaintiff's point of view, to have these things thrown in there could make a layman a little bit afraid. I trust the Judiciary in this country. Maybe I am wrong, but I do. I want to go back to amendment No. 13. The Minister has said he will not accept this amendment, which seeks to delete the fairly strong phrase “manifestly unfounded”. The Minister makes the point that there is little evidence in Ireland of people taking cases to frustrate or delay people.”
“I thank the Minister. He has destroyed some of my paperwork in his answers, but that is fine. I want to go back to section 34A(d). The Minister made points in his speech about a couple of things, one of which was judge-made law. We are very lucky in this country that judges can make law and, indeed, some of the laws they make can be challenged by other judges or changed by other judges. That is a good thing. The Minister also made the point that we do not want to be too prescriptive. In legislation, we want to allow as much flexibility as we possibly can and trust our legal system to deliver fair and just results for litigants at all times.”
“I am a little concerned about the term "bad faith" on its own, but if we are to have that section in the Bill, I would rather it was just "bad faith and procedural tactics" with nothing else and left to the Judiciary to define for themselves what they believe is bad faith and what they believe is a misuse of procedural tactics. There are other things I want to say on other sections but I will leave it for the Minister to respond to now and I appreciate his time and patience on this.”
“The case went on for ten years, and at the High Court it was struck out. Eventually, when it went back to the Supreme Court, as far as I recall, there were millions involved in the settlement at that time. If it can happen in a case for personal injuries, it can happen in any case. Going back to the broader policy of things, access to justice is what it is all about. We should try to be as broad as we can and trust our Judiciary because we have skilled lawyers in this country. If a judge errs or if your lawyers feel a judge erred, then they have the capacity to run an appeal on your behalf, and appeals have been successful.”
“The other thing is that defamation cases often hinge on a nuance or a context of credibility, and matters need to be tested at trial, not struck out prematurely. I wonder, looking at the definitions, is there a chance that a case would be struck out without being given its 15 minutes or five years in the courts to have the case fully and properly examined by a judge? We are not going to have juries so we are going to depend on the judge in these cases. Are we running the risk of those who feel they have been hard done by having to incur additional costs to lodge an appeal where a case has been struck out? Anecdotally, we know that cases that have been struck out at one level actually do succeed at another level. I am mindful of a case concerning a young boy in Cork and an inoculation.”
“Is that fair? Again, we should ask the Judiciary to make a decision on that. On fair trials, this is something that frequently comes up. Early dismissal based on alleged tactics may deny the plaintiff the opportunity to fully present evidence. I do not know. The Minister has appeared in court on behalf of clients. Where a case is struck out, does the client not feel that in some way he or she has been dealt a grave injustice by not having the full rigour of his or her case examined? Certainly anecdotally speaking to people who have been through court cases I have heard these things said very many times. I have to admit that mainly it was in cases of employment law, in which I was involved at various stages in my career.”
“How many times have we heard it from laypeople within the public that they are deliberately setting out to delay my system and they have slowed the system down? There is some justification for that claim. Some cases go on for years on end but are they genuinely slowing it down? Surely we should leave that to a judge to decide rather than prescribing what is procedural tactics at the end. When it comes to the litigation process for defamation or whatever, I constantly return to the fact that money is needed to take any case to the High Court or any court for that matter. If a defendant is well resourced - a large company or a major national publisher, for example - it can ensure that it delivers the best possible defence for itself by what would seem to me, as a plaintiff, to be deliberate procedural tactics of delaying my case.”
“From that point of view, these are genuine honest tactics. Surely what we should do is stop at the term "bad faith" and procedural tactics and allow the Judiciary to decide whether or not what a person is doing, as a plaintiff or defendant, is in bad faith and is a misuse of procedural tactics. What one judge sees as a delay, another judge will see as a fair system or fair means of establishing a case in order to run a legitimate case in the courts to the best possible advantage. I always think when we talk about court cases that both sides are right until one side is proved wrong, and that is always the difficult one. Defendants could weaponise the provision by alleging the plaintiffs are using procedural tactics.”
“Are we in any way trying to limit the discretion of the Judiciary in their interpretation of what may or may not be bad faith? On procedural tactics, the Minister in his Bill has set out what procedural tactics he wants to define in the Bill and make it fairly easy for those of us who might take defamation cases to understand but, as I said earlier on, procedural tactics could encompass legitimate litigation strategies. A person may require an injunction to stop something happening. A person may require to go to the courts and make applications. Again, as I mentioned, a person could look for the discovery of documents but not get the discovery that he or she feels entitled to and, as such, have to go to the courts and seek the assistance of the courts to get the documents that are being sought.”
“Very often there is a certain amount of ill will towards the publisher of something that you or I may regard as defamation. There is also the situation that there are safeguards within the system already. Do we need to further define those safeguards? Courts already have tools available to them to strike out cases that come before them. I have no doubt that senior counsel on both sides will argue for a strike out at the earliest possible situation. We should remember that if a case has been struck out, there is the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, if one feels that important about it. Adding bad faith as a separate ground risks making some of the tools that are available redundant for all intents and purposes. I am asking the Minister as he is the man who knows these things.”
“In the natural course of a defamation case in the High Court I may be accused of bad faith, or I may be accused of bad faith before I ever get inside the door of the court. Very often, these cases are between people who knew one another or there was a vague relationship of some sort or other and suddenly one of them is being accused of bad faith. The person's good name is on the line already because they are in there trying to defend it and now somebody is accusing them of bad faith. That may cause them not to go ahead with a defamation case. The Minister said here last week that everybody has a right to the courts and everybody can have a case settled in the courts. I may be wrong, but if bad faith is something that is going to haunt me, does that undermine my constitutional right to take a matter to the courts?”
“I remember a noted senior counsel one time saying to me, "We settled a court case at the Supreme Court." The case had started as an unfair dismissal and it finished up as a Supreme Court case. They settled, which I could not understand, so I asked the senior counsel, "How did you settle when we won the whole way along?" He said, "Every court case is a 50:50 case. At the end of the day, it is how the case is presented." From that point of view, what I believe is bad faith on your part may not be bad faith at all. Looking at the chilling effects on the claimants, fear of being accused of bad faith may deter an individual from pursuing a defamation case. Some people are very sensitive to words. Words mean a lot.”
“On the other hand, the defendant in a case may decide to use every tool in the box in order to delay the case, from my perspective, but from their perspective they are taking every step they possibly can to ensure that their defence is up for running in court. For example, this may involve using discovery. Sometimes discovery leads to delays where the defendant decides they are going to frustrate the discovery or, in some cases, it may be the simple fact that it takes time to get documents. If I am the plaintiff and believe you have documents that will prove my case, I seek discovery on them, the High Court orders discovery and you go to try to find those documents. What I believe you have may not be factual or it may be the case that the documents I am referring to are long since destroyed.”
“The Bill talks about "such as delaying proceedings, fraudulent or abusive forum shopping or the discontinuation of cases at a later stage of the proceedings in bad faith". Let us deal with the last one first. I may go so far in a legal action, which I am paying for, and my lawyers bring me to one side and say to me, "You are not going to win this, you have a chance now to pull out of it and walk away with the least possible damage to yourself, but if you continue on the chances of losing are quite significant." At that stage I have to make up my own mind whether I will go ahead with it or not.”
“In the Bill, he has tried to narrow that down and give a definition of what would be regarded as bad faith or procedural tactics. I have had a few days to look at it. One thing that concerns me is the subjectivity of the term "bad faith". While I understand the Minister is trying to narrow it down, are the hands of the Judiciary being tied in doing so, in that the criteria set out in the Bill must be met? Senator Keogan's amendment allows a lot of discretion on the part of the Judiciary to decide what is and is not bad faith. If we look at the motive behind the notion of bad faith, determining bad faith requires inferring a claimant's intent, which is inherently subjective. Another person may think it is a reasonable argument but the tying down of various things concerns me.”
“11 relates to, the Minister has been very careful in trying to cover all the aces. The specific area I am concerned about is 34A(d), dealing with bad faith. The amendment tabled by Senator Keogan would make a couple of changes. In the first paragraph, the Bill states, "pursue unfounded claims and that are not brought to genuinely assert or exercise a right, but that have as their main purpose the prevention, restriction or penalisation of public participation". Senator Keogan's amendment would change it to "have the effect of preventing". In 34A(d) on the use of bad faith, the Minister has attempted - I think he does a fair job - to cover what bad faith is. I believe the Minister said the previous day he was here that it was too broad to finish on the idea of just using bad faith or procedural tactics. I think he thought it was too broad.”
“Another case against Sunday Newspapers Limited, Gilchrist v. Sunday Newspapers Ltd., concerned whether the publication's generalised statements about wrongdoing were linked to the plaintiff. The court analysed whether the vagueness still allowed readers to identify the plaintiff and infer defamatory meanings. An interesting one is the case of Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Limited, where the defamation took place in a social media context. In that particular case, the High Court ruled that the company had been defamed and an award of €40,000 was the outcome. It would have been useful if we could have included in the Bill in some way in relation to vague comments, innuendo and so forth that the liability of those publishing such things should not be in any way protected. On reading section 34A, which amendment No.”
“In that particular case, it was vagueness but that vagueness did not protect the publisher. In Travers v . Sunday Newspapers Ltd., the plaintiff argued that a vague reference in a newspaper article implied misconduct. The High Court examined whether the words were reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. The case highlights how Irish courts scrutinise subtle, suggestive language and in that case the plaintiff was successful. In Corrigan v. Kevin P. Kilrane and Company Solicitors in 1997, the solicitors claimed defamation based on implied allegations in correspondence. The court considered whether the wording, though not explicit, would lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. It shows that even professional communications with vague phrasing can be actionable.”
“Even those who can and who find themselves up against very large or very wealthy organisations may be unwilling to do that. One thing I would have hoped this legislation might have dealt with was the ambiguous wording used in media, the use of innuendo in media and the use of phrasing or cautious phrasing in media where the liability is not perhaps 100% evident at the outset. I am looking back at key Irish cases like Berry v. The Irish Times in 1973. They were concerned whether the article's innuendo conveyed a defamatory meaning. The court in that case held that even if the wording was indirect, liability may arise if a reasonable reader could infer a damaging meaning. This is where the courts have shown, in my view, great maturity and understanding.”
“I thank the Minister for his patience in bringing this Bill forward. There are a couple of things I want to address at the outset. In drafting this legislation, part of the purpose behind it was to simplify things and increase clarity where possible but there is a huge media interest in the outcome of this. The various publishing bodies and so forth expect to come out of this pretty good, from what I can see. Maybe I am wrong and the Minister will disagree with me. I am looking at key Irish cases over quite an extended period where potential defamation took place but as I said to the Minister last week when he was here, it is all very well telling somebody they have been defamed and they should take the defamation to the courts but not everybody can afford to go to the courts.”