The High Court has halted five separate libel actions by businessman Dermot Desmond over newspaper articles published more than 10 years ago, including articles alleging the family of late taoiseach Charles Haughey received payments from companies of Mr Desmond.
Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne today ruled Mr Desmond's inordinate and inexcusable delay since autumn 2000 in prosecuting the actions had moderately prejudiced the ability of Times Newspapers Ltd (TNL) to defend them, particularly as the
Sunday Timesarticles related to events in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The judge noted, despite Mr Desmond's decision in 2005 to re-activate two other sets of libel proceedings against TNL and Mirror Group Newspapers having previously accepted legal advice not to prosecute those pending the outcome of the Moriarty tribunal, no step was taken to re-activate these five actions.
She attached "significant weight" to this failure which occurred notwithstanding Mr Desmond's statement his instructions "at all times" were to bring the cases on for trial as soon as possible.
The judge also ruled pleas of justification advanced by a defendant in libel proceedings cannot of themselves mean any defence application to dismiss such proceedings for want of prosecution could never be sucessful.
While the Supreme Court had permitted Mr Desmond proceed with a separate libel action against MGN, these five cases differed as no effort was made since 2000 to progress them, she ruled. In the MGN case, Mr Desmond moved to reactivate that in 2005 after accepting it was no longer appropriate to await the outcome of the Moriarty tribunal.
In light of her findings, Ms Justice Dunne yesterday granted TNL's application to dismiss the five actions over articles published in the
Sunday Timeson June 22nd 1997, January 11th 1998 February 8th 1998, February 15th 1998 and August 8th 1999.
The judge noted the January 11th 1998 articles headlined "Telecom cash paid Haughey's boat bill" and "Just good friends" referred to a sum of about IR£75,000 paid to the Haughey family from the accounts of Freezone Investments Ltd, a company controlled by Mr Desmond which was a substantial beneficiary of the sale of the former Johnston Mooney & O'Brien site to Telecom Eireann.
The February 8th 1998 article — "Desmond rescued Haughey's son's firm" — referred to a payment of IR£100,000 to cover flying hours for executives made in 1995 by Mr Desmond, through an investment company controlled by him, to Celtic Helicopters Ltd, a company controlled by Ciaran Haughey.
The February 15th article, "DPP under fire from missed cases", stated the inspector appointed to investigate issues arising from the Telecom purchase of the Ballsbridge site had found Mr Desmond had given untruthful evidence about his involvement in the transaction, which had cost the State millions of pounds, and noted no prosecution had ever been taken.
The August 9th 1999 article, under the heading "Haughey's son was on Ryanair payroll", referred to a payment of IR 10,000 to Celtic Helicopters by NCB, a stockbroking firm then owned by Mr Desmond, through Ryanair.
Mr Desmond had alleged all the articles were published falsely and maliciously. The defendants denied defamation and pleaded justification in certain respects.
Mr Desmond initiated the five actions on dates in 1997, 1998 and 1999. After pleadings closed and some discussions between the sides about discovery of documents, a letter from his solicitors of October 10th 2000 was the last communication with the
defendants.
TNL argued the cases had lain dormant since 2000 and they were prejudiced by the delay. They also complained as to the possible objective of Mr Desmond in issuing proceedings in order to inhibit them in their reporting of him and his affairs.
Mr Desmond in an affidavit confirmed he accepted legal advice to await the outcome of the Moriarty tribunal, rejected the claim the proceedings were issued to inhibit the defendants reporting of his affirs, accepted there had been delay and undertook to prosecute the actions expeditiously.
The judge said the libel pleaded in the five cases was serious as the claims suggested the words complained of had a variety of meanings, including Mr Desmond committed criminal offences, is corrupt and dishonest.
The delay in prosecuting was inordinate and inexcusable and, in those circumstances, she had to decide whether the balance of justice lay in allowing the actions proceed or not. The scope of a defence was to be taken into account in an appropriate case.
A plea of justification was an important factor to be taken into account and the defendants pleaded justification, albeit a limited plea. However, the fact a plea of justification was made was not a license to allow a plaintiff allow proceedings to "languish indefinitely".
The judge said it was "somewhat surprising" Mr Desmond had chosen not to provide further information relating to the legal advice given to him about awaiting the tribunal and "most surprising", having decided in late 2005 to revive other libel proceedings, no steps were taken to revive these five actions.
No explanation or excuse had been offered in affidavits from Mr Desmond himself or his solicitors for taking no further steps in the five actions, the judge said. While there might be some excuse up to December 2005 for the delay given the legal advice to await the outcome of the tribunal, no excuse of any kind was given for the delay after that and the defendants were entitled from then to apply to have the actions dismissed.
