The recent decision of the High Court in Gilroy & Anor v O’Leary [2024] IEHC 349 offers useful insight to those bringing or defending defamation claims, particularly in the context of online defamation.
Arising out of the posting of allegedly defamatory statements on YouTube in 2018, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to join Google as a Co-Defendant to proceedings, as such attempts were held to be statute barred.
Statute of Limitations
Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that its ability to refuse to join Co-Defendants should be exercised sparingly. Such a refusal is possible where the claim against the party in question is manifestly statute barred pursuant to section 11 of the Statute of Limitations Act, 1957. In any event, this would act as a defence to party which was joined as a Co-Defendant.
Although Google acknowledged that it could be deemed a publisher of defamatory material posted online, focus shifted towards when the cause of action in the present case accrued.
Limitation Period and Cause of Action in Defamation Claims
For the purposes of the Statute of Limitations, defamation actions must be brought within one year of the allegedly defamatory act or, in exceptional circumstances, this may be extended to up to two years where the court deems it appropriate. Furthermore, section 11(3B) stipulates that the cause of action will accrue on the date of publication of the defamatory statement or, where a publication is made on the internet, it shall be the date on which the material is first capable of being viewed or listened to.
Considering this, the Court rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that the cause of action commenced when the matter was brought to the attention of Google – in this case, over three years after the publication – nor on the date on which Google refused to remove the content.
Indeed, the cause of action accrued when the video was published in June 2018 and, as a result, the claim against Google was statute barred. Consequently, the question of whether Google was a publisher in this instance was moot.
Conclusion
Overall, this decision serves to underline the need for parties to act both swiftly and decisively when instituting proceedings, particularly if the statute in question is short.
For online defamation, the cause of action will commence almost instantaneously, provided that the content is viewable or audible, and this may considerably impact the decision of a court to add co-defendants to proceedings.
Further Information
For expert legal advice on defamation matters, please contact Ciarán Leavy, Partner and Head of the Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution Team.
Search site
Contact our office
Make an enquiry
