Eoin – Cearta.ie

Prior restraints, facial and as-applied challenges, overbreadth, and anti-social behaviour orders: a note on Tallon v DPP [2023] IECA 125 (25 May 2023)

Posted on 24 June, 202525 June, 2025 by Eoin

When it was handed down, I described the decision of Phelan J in Tallon v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] IEHC 322 (31 May 2022) as an important judgment on the scope of the rights to freedom of expression and communication protected by the Constitution. It concerned the extent to which an anti-social behaviour order imposed pursuant to section 115(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 (also here) could permissibly restrain those rights.

The Wexford District Court imposed an ASBO on the applicant prohibiting him from engaging in public speaking and recording anywhere within the environs of Wexford Town at any time. On a judicial review to the High Court, Phelan J quoted extensively from Barrington J’s judgment in Murphy v Irish Radio and Television Commission [1999] 1 IR 12, 24, [1998] 2 ILRM 360, 372 (28 May 1998) (doc | pdf) on the free speech rights protected by the Constitution. She held that those rights were engaged, and that the restraint of anti-social behaviour was a legitimate reason to justify the ASBO, but that the order was disproportionate. She therefore held that the ASBO made under section 115 of the Act was ultra vires, and she quashed two convictions (under section 117 of the Act (also here)) for breaching the ASBO.…

Restitution of mistaken pension payments, in the news

Posted on 11 June, 202511 June, 2025 by Eoin

Mary Regan and Anne-Marie Walsh have an interesting story in this morning’s Irish Independent:

Nearly all government ministers owe money to the State due to pension error, with funds to be ‘fully recouped’

Almost all government ministers and junior ministers owe money to the State due to errors in pension payments. They will be informed in the coming days of the sums to be repaid, ranging from as low as €100 up to €30,000.

Although the ministers and other civil servants involved were not at fault in relation to the errors identified in the National Shared Services Office (NSSO), Public Expenditure Minister Jack Chambers said he will ensure “all monies owed to the State are fully recouped”. …

A brief statement from National Shared Services Office (NSSO) on the issue is here. A rather longer statement from Minister Chambers on the issue is here.

Gavel&Cash This a straightforward case of restitution of mistaken payments. Meanwhile, in preparation for an analysis on this blog, I’ve been re-reading last week’s Supreme Court decision in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Murray [2025] IESC 24 (04 June 2025). Dunne J (also here) [150] (Murray J concurring) approved the following passage from Charles Mitchell, Paul Mitchell & Stephen Watterson (eds) Goff & Jones on Unjust Enrichment (10th ed, Thomson Reuters, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2022) [Goff & Jones] §9-163:

It is a long-standing assumption within the law of unjust enrichment that a claimant will not be denied restitution for mistake merely because he was “negligent”.

…

Defamation pieces in the Business Post – libel tourism, public interest, juries, and the serious harm test – updated

Posted on 8 June, 202524 June, 2025 by Eoin

I have a piece (sub req’d) in today’s Business Post:

Gerry Adams’ High Court win shows need for urgent defamation reform

One of the factors that makes Irish law so appealing to foreign plaintiffs is the weakness of the public interest defence

… the Adams case demonstrates that the Government must re-think its defamation reform proposals in at least three key respects. The first relates to the fact that Adams took the case in Dublin, rather than in Belfast, where the programme was primarily broadcast. The second relates to the failure of the BBC’s public interest defence. The third relates to the role of the jury.

A trillion here, a quadrillion there …

Posted on 28 February, 202528 February, 2025 by Eoin

… and pretty soon, you’re talking real money (to rework Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen’s apocryphal remark).

The last time I blogged about Citibank, it had made a mistaken overpayment of nearly US$1 billion (their restitution claim was successful on appeal). The same post noted another bank’s mistaken overpayment of US$50 billion (the payee co-operated in the reversal of the transaction). These are staggering numbers. But they pale into insignificance beside a Citibank overpayment in the Irish Times today:

Citigroup erroneously credited client account with $81tn in ‘near miss’

Citigroup credited a client’s account with [US]$81 trillion (€77 trillion) when it meant to send only [US]$280, … The erroneous internal transfer, which occurred last April and has not been previously reported, was missed by both a payments employee and a second official assigned to check the transaction before it was approved to be processed at the start of business the following day.

A third employee detected a problem with the bank’s account balances, catching the payment 90 minutes after it was posted. The payment was reversed several hours later, … No funds left Citi, …

The Guardian put the figure in context:

Citigroup credited client’s account with $81tn before error spotted

US bank meant to send $280 but no funds were transferred despite ‘fat finger’ mistake

… A transaction of [US]$81tn (£64tn) would be so huge that it would be unlikely to go through any bank’s systems.

…

A New Look at vouchers in liquidations

Posted on 25 February, 202513 March, 2025 by Eoin

The saga of the Administration of HMV in 2013 made headlines not only for the sorry state into which a once-great business had fallen, but also for the mess it made of deciding whether or not to accept vouchers during the Administration. I blogged about this here, here, here, and here. The legal issues were not entirely straightforward, and those posts tell a tale of me working them out in real time. I concluded that, for so long as the shops were trading normally, there was no legal basis for them to refuse to honour vouchers. On the one hand, Examiners (in Ireland) (but not Administrators, in England) have a limited power to get out of contracts, but only with the approval of the court. However, on the other hand, in a liquidation, liquidators can disclaim contracts – including vouchers; and even if they don’t disclaim them but decline to honour them, they would rank as unsecured creditors in the insolvency, leaving little practical redress.

Many of the issues with vouchers have been clarified by the Consumer Protection (Gift Vouchers) Act 2019 (also here), inserting a new Part 4A in to the Consumer Protection Act 2007 (also here), which effectively brings the issue within the remit of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC).…

Defamation reform – one step backward, one step forward, and a mis-step

Posted on 21 February, 202521 February, 2025 by Eoin

In my previous post, I noted that the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 has been restored to the Dáil Order Paper, and will therefore continue its journey through the Oireachtas.

Anois teacht an Earraigh, beidh an lá dul chun síneadh, and the Government will publish a Spring Legislation Programme. It has duly done so, and it lists the Bill among the Bills restored to the Dáil and Seanad Order Papers, to recommence at Committee Stage.

However, no Oireachtas committees have yet been established, because the row over Dáil speaking rights has not yet been resolved. The earliest this is likely to be achieved is at a meeting of the Dáil Reform Committee next Wednesday, but unless the Government amends its proposals, that meeting is unlikely to settle the matter. Meanwhile, the long delayed Defamation Bill has taken another step back.

As I noted in the post before that on Defamation in the Programme for Government, the Minister for Justice having carriage of the Bill is Jim O’Callaghan. As a backbencher speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill in the Dáil (noted on this blog here), he characterised the decision to abolish juries in the High Court as “short-sighted”, raising question as to whether he would amend the Bill.…

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted … the Defamation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 has been restored to the Order Paper

Posted on 6 February, 2025 by Eoin

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted …

An old teacher of mine told a good story about that phrase. When Éamon de Valera was making a campaign appearance in Ennis, Co Clare, in the 1923 General Election on 15 August 2023, he was arrested on the platform. He topped the poll two weeks later. He was released on 17 July 1924. When he returned to Ennis to campaign for re-election in the subsequent General Election in June 1927, he began his speech from the same platform with the immortal words “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted …”. (This Clare Herald video, on Facebook makes the same claim).

It’s a great story. And it’s all over the internet. I’d be grateful if someone could point me to a credible contemporary source.

There are many other apocryphal uses of the phrase. I particularly like this one:

As Europe teetered perilously on the edge of cataclysmic conflict, BBC television was still in its infancy. The service could not continue in war time – its transmitter at Alexandra Palace would have been a powerful beacon for enemy planes. So, with only days to go until the declaration of war, the television signal was cut off on 1 September 1939 half way through a Mickey Mouse’s Gala Premiere.

…

Defamation in the Programme for Government – Updates

Posted on 18 January, 20256 February, 2025 by Eoin

Following the recent general election, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the two main parties likely to lead the next government, have published an agreed draft Programme for Government (here, and here (pdf); update: final version here). It pledges to “tackle the practice of ‘retail defamation'” (p122), and to

Restore the Defamation Bill 2024 to the order paper and make passing the legislation a priority. (p122)

This is welcome, but hardly surprising. Each of these parties had made similar promises in their general election manifestos. Fianna Fáil (pdf) promised to

Address shoplifting, by providing retailers with a statutory defence in cases where shoppers claim they have been defamed when asked whether they have paid for a product and/or for proof of purchase [p18]; and
Restore the Defamation Bill to the Order paper at its current advanced stage, maintain its
current approach and implement it within three months [p116].

And Fine Gael (pdf) promised to

Enact the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024:
This legislation will reform and modernise defamation laws, including a new statutory defence for ‘retail defamation’ cases to address the rise in claims made against retail businesses [p64].
Enact the Defamation Bill within 100 days:
Pass the Defamation Bill to balance freedom of expression with protections for individuals’
good name and reputation.

…