A former executive director of the Irish Planning Institute (IPI) has claimed in the High Court that two Irish Examiner news articles made false statements about her and left her feeling “unemployable”.
Orla Purcell is suing the Irish Examiner over the January 2023 articles, claiming the publications were defamatory of her.
The subject of the articles, written by journalist Mick Clifford, was a report compiled by consultancy firm EY, following an investigation into allegations made against Purcell by another IPI employee.
It is Purcell’s case that various statements in the articles were defamatory in meaning, including statements that allegedly meant she was “guilty” of “serious misconduct”, “impropriety” and “illegality”.
READ MORE
She also complains of statements that allegedly meant she “wrongfully and/or dishonestly incurred expenditure of €1,500″, and “made several attempts to create a ‘false email trail’”.
Purcell, of Shrewsbury, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, claims the statements are “false, unbalanced and published maliciously knowing that they were untrue or being reckless as to their truth”.
The Irish Examiner denies these claims and is contesting the case. It claims the articles have a different meaning to that contended by Purcell, and that its pleaded meaning is true.
The Cork-based newspaper also relies on a defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, and a defence of qualified privilege.
The trial of Purcell’s action opened on Tuesday before Judge Tony O’Connor and a jury of six men and six women.
Led in evidence by her barrister Mark Harty, appearing with Niall Buckley and Hugh McDowell, Purcell said the impact of articles has been “devastating”.
“I’m too scared to apply for a new job and explain all this to a potential new employer,” she said. Purcell left her role as the IPI’s executive director − described by her “effectively like being chief executive” − in November 2022.
Purcell read to the jury various communications with Clifford following the publication of the article, in which she stated the articles “come across as one-sided”, with many points “factually incorrect”.
She suggested in correspondence the EY report was leaked to him to deflect from “unnecessary” expenditure due to be disclosed at an upcoming IPI egm.
Asked about the background to the case, Purcell said she was informed in November 2021 by the then president of the IPI, Conor Norton, of a complaint made against her by Michelle Ball, who was a membership and policy co-ordinator at the institute.
Norton, who also worked at the Technological University of Dublin, was Ball’s supervisor for a thesis she was working on as part of a master’s degree at the university, Purcell said.
Purcell claimed Norton persuaded the IPI council, the institute’s decision-making body, to suspend Purcell. She stated Norton did not disclose the nature of the complaint to the council.
Purcell said Norton then engaged EY to investigate Ball’s allegations.
Following the completion of the report, the institute’s oversight committee directed Purcell face a disciplinary procedure to determine if she had been involved in gross misconduct, she said.
At this time, Purcell was seeking to take carer’s leave, to tend to her elderly mother, she said. She was subsequently approved for this leave, but not before Norton and the IPI’s vice-president, Brian Keaney, delayed in signing off on required documentation, Purcell claimed.
Purcell said she subsequently came to an agreement to take a voluntary redundancy package worth €60,000. She repaid some €5,000 to go towards a bursary, she said.
She said she made the suggestion of voluntary redundancy in circumstances where she believed the IPI would be insolvent “in a matter of months” had she returned to her role. She said she believed the IPI would not have been in a position to pay wages to her and a recently hired senior planner.
Opening Purcell’s case, Niall Buckley said Purcell was serving as the IPI’s executive director at a time when there was a “degree of turmoil” at the planning body.
Buckley told the jury the Government’s strategic housing development (SHD) policy had resulted in tensions between senior members at the IPI, and “a degree of factionalism”. The SHD system was introduced in an effort to speed up construction of housing, but was ultimately scrapped.
In those circumstances, the EY report was leaked to the Irish Examiner. The newspaper, “wittingly or unwittingly”, became “a vehicle of a faction fight” within the IPI, Buckley stated.
Buckley said his side did not agree with much of the EY report. Counsel submitted the Irish Examiner’s articles did not report fairly on the report, and alleged that certain allegations were “relayed” as fact.
The case continues on Wednesday, when Purcell is expected to be cross-examined.
