Comments on: Defamation of a company in the still un-commenced 2009 Act http://www.cearta.ie/2009/11/defamation-of-a-company-in-the-still-un-commenced-2009-act/ the Irish for rights Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:47:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: The Oireachtas and Human Rights Treaties « Human Rights in Ireland http://www.cearta.ie/2009/11/defamation-of-a-company-in-the-still-un-commenced-2009-act/comment-page-1/#comment-11776 The Oireachtas and Human Rights Treaties « Human Rights in Ireland Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:16:59 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=4384#comment-11776 [...] on the under-discussed provision allowing a company to sue for defamation here as did Eoin O’Dell here. Eoin also considered the constitutionality of the Act in this [...] [...] on the under-discussed provision allowing a company to sue for defamation here as did Eoin O’Dell here. Eoin also considered the constitutionality of the Act in this [...]

]]> By: cearta.ie » New year, new defamation regime http://www.cearta.ie/2009/11/defamation-of-a-company-in-the-still-un-commenced-2009-act/comment-page-1/#comment-11370 cearta.ie » New year, new defamation regime Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:37:40 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=4384#comment-11370 [...] Healy continues that, whilst in July, the Department had said that the Act was expected to commence in October, the spokesperson confirmed that it is now expected to commence in January 2010. For earlier comments to the same effect, see Rossa McMahon (see also here). [...] [...] Healy continues that, whilst in July, the Department had said that the Act was expected to commence in October, the spokesperson confirmed that it is now expected to commence in January 2010. For earlier comments to the same effect, see Rossa McMahon (see also here). [...]

]]> By: Rossa McMahon http://www.cearta.ie/2009/11/defamation-of-a-company-in-the-still-un-commenced-2009-act/comment-page-1/#comment-11240 Rossa McMahon Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:16:53 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=4384#comment-11240 Is there any news on the Privacy Bill, which was originally to accompany the Defamation Act? I didn't go through all the Oireachtas Debates on the Defamation Bill but I noted in my post that Minister McDowell appeared to take on board criticisms of the corporate defamation section and indicated that it might be reconsidered. From memory, the Defamation & Privacy Bills went by the wayside with the election and the former was suddenly revived and pushed through the Dáil rather quickly by the new Minister(s). I wonder if certain aspects of the legislation were due for reconsideration but this was then abandoned due to a changing of the guard? Is there any news on the Privacy Bill, which was originally to accompany the Defamation Act?

I didn’t go through all the Oireachtas Debates on the Defamation Bill but I noted in my post that Minister McDowell appeared to take on board criticisms of the corporate defamation section and indicated that it might be reconsidered. From memory, the Defamation & Privacy Bills went by the wayside with the election and the former was suddenly revived and pushed through the Dáil rather quickly by the new Minister(s). I wonder if certain aspects of the legislation were due for reconsideration but this was then abandoned due to a changing of the guard?

]]> By: Ronan http://www.cearta.ie/2009/11/defamation-of-a-company-in-the-still-un-commenced-2009-act/comment-page-1/#comment-11227 Ronan Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:15:43 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=4384#comment-11227 Eoin, I think Daithi has a post on an Australian action called Whirlpool which never ran and was about web published injurious falsehood and there was also one on Ace Marketing which was quite funny, but on the mark. http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/2clix/soc.pdf Course Mulvany v Betfair is of note in relation to the eCommerce Directive defence or host Defence as seen in Bunt v Tilley. My view is that companies should be included in the Act. The right to a good name and stemming irresponsible journalism is important. The new reliefs such as Declaration, Lodgment and Correction should be used more by the judiciary and Counsel briefing in such cases. The RSC Lodgment procedure will still have its uses in relation to overall cost penalties relating to vexatious, frivolous or indeed malicious prosecution of proceedings by any party to such an action. I've worked on 5/6 cases in the last 12 months involving pretty bad defamations which frankly (while not being a requirement) did validly damage the reputation, revenues and trade of the businesses in question. Claims of slavery, incitement etc. The ECHR is being construed and included more and more by the Courts, e.g., Article 6 (which while not being fully supported by Macken J. in Desmond v MGN) is often allowed in the case of companies. 'Locking up granny' for Civil Debt also backs this view up http://www.courts.ie/80256F2B00356A6B/0/C70D9DB2F22E09E9802575FC003C52A4?Open I share your views on commencement, and would highlight that the new remedies/defences have featured a fair bit in the UK in recent weeks: Kate Winslet, Ronaldo and Cheryl Cole. Lets hope the Rules Committee make matters clear. Ronan Eoin,

I think Daithi has a post on an Australian action called Whirlpool which never ran and was about web published injurious falsehood and there was also one on Ace Marketing which was quite funny, but on the mark.

http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/2clix/soc.pdf

Course Mulvany v Betfair is of note in relation to the eCommerce Directive defence or host Defence as seen in Bunt v Tilley.

My view is that companies should be included in the Act. The right to a good name and stemming irresponsible journalism is important.

The new reliefs such as Declaration, Lodgment and Correction should be used more by the judiciary and Counsel briefing in such cases.

The RSC Lodgment procedure will still have its uses in relation to overall cost penalties relating to vexatious, frivolous or indeed malicious prosecution of proceedings by any party to such an action.

I’ve worked on 5/6 cases in the last 12 months involving pretty bad defamations which frankly (while not being a requirement) did validly damage the reputation, revenues and trade of the businesses in question. Claims of slavery, incitement etc.

The ECHR is being construed and included more and more by the Courts, e.g., Article 6 (which while not being fully supported by Macken J. in Desmond v MGN) is often allowed in the case of companies. ‘Locking up granny’ for Civil Debt also backs this view up http://www.courts.ie/80256F2B00356A6B/0/C70D9DB2F22E09E9802575FC003C52A4?Open

I share your views on commencement, and would highlight that the new remedies/defences have featured a fair bit in the UK in recent weeks: Kate Winslet, Ronaldo and Cheryl Cole. Lets hope the Rules Committee make matters clear.

Ronan

]]>