High Court awards €140,000 damages for defamatory Facebook post

Introduction

On 4 December 2024, Judge David Nolan of the High Court awarded businessman Peter Casey €140,000 in damages (including €20,000 in aggravated damages) for a defamatory Facebook post. While the case was undefended, the judgement is noteworthy as (1) it is a rare occasion of a Judge awarding damages in a High Court defamation case, as damages are ordinarily awarded by juries in such cases; (2) given the paucity of High Court decisions in defamation cases, it is a rare example of an application by a Judge of the 2022 guidelines of the Supreme Court in the Higgins v Irish Aviation Authority case; and (3) it also indicates what damages might be available for social media posts depending on how widely the post is read/circulated and the behaviour of the Defendant.

Background

Peter Casey made available accommodation in Buncrana, County Donegal for Ukrainian refugees in early 2023 in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the time, he communicated to the media that it was his intention to distribute any profits made from the rental of the property to the people of Donegal and the people of Ukraine.

The Defendant was a member of a group known as the “National Alliance - Irish People” and administrated a group called “Buncrana Community Watch”. On 25 April 2023 he published a post on his Facebook page which named Mr Casey and noted “We spoke to the workers [at the Buncrana property] and informed them that moving unvetted people around like cattle and then warehousing them in office cubicles for profit is akin to human trafficking and inhumane”. The Defendant suggested that the post be shared.

There was then a fire at the premises and the day after the fire, the Defendant posted a photograph of the damage to the property on his Facebook page, noting that the damage had not been mentioned in the media. He asked his followers to share information in relation to the fire damage.

Mr Casey sent a solicitor's letter to the Defendant in April 2023 asking that the post be removed. The Defendant did not remove the post at that time.

Proceedings

Mr Casey issued proceedings in June 2023. In and around November 2023, Judge Coffey of the High Court made an Order requiring the Defendant to remove the post. The Defendant, in fact, did not remove the post for some months and did not engage at all with the proceedings.

Judgement

Judge Nolan held that the words were defamatory. Based on the evidence, he was satisfied that the persons who were intended to reside at the property were not unvetted but were women and children fleeing the war in Ukraine. He was also satisfied that there was no evidence of human trafficking and that the premises in question was “very fine accommodation”. Lastly, the Judge was satisfied that the Plaintiff did not intend to retain any profit from the rental to the State, and that he was going to distribute any such profit to the people of Donegal and the people of Ukraine.

The Judge was also satisfied that the post had been published and that the Defendant had over 2,000 friends on his Facebook page at the time. The post in question had 181 reactions, 45 comments and was shared 180 times.

Damages Awarded

In awarding the Plaintiff €120,000 in damages, Judge Nolan took into account the damaging impact the post had on the Plaintiff and his family, the fact that this was a post on social media, and the consequent dissemination of the defamatory post across the world wide web, as well as the failure of the Defendant to mitigate the damage caused in particular by leaving the post on Facebook for a period of 9 months in the face of a Court Order to remove the post. The Court also, somewhat unusually, ordered that the Defendant pay €20,000 in aggravated damages, taking into account the Defendant’s failure to engage with the proceedings and his failure to comply with the Court Order to remove the post.

Having regard to the Supreme Court guidelines for damages in defamation cases arising from the Higgins case, the Judge deemed this to fall within the parameters of the second category mentioned in those guidelines namely the “medium range”, which caters for an award of general damages between €50,000 and €125,000. In landing on an award of €120,000, it seems that the Judge deemed this case to be in the upper limits of the “medium range”.

Comment

It is unclear from the judgement whether the Plaintiff asked Meta to remove the post. Certainly, no proceedings were issued against Meta and therefore, it is not possible to know whether Meta would have defended any such proceedings and relied on one of the defences that they have relied on previously in situations such as this, namely that they are not a publisher, that they are entitled to rely on the provisions of the E-Commerce Directive and in particular, the “hosting defence” (now provided for in the Digital Services Act) or that this was a case of “innocent publication” under section 27 of The Defamation Act 2009.

The decision does, however, indicate what damages might be awarded for a social media post in circumstances where the poster had a relatively significant following and the impact of the post in terms of reactions, comments and shares was not negligible. This decision may provide guidance in terms of future proceedings where individuals or organisations are sued for defamation over posts on social media, although regard will have to be had to the particular circumstances of this case and the behaviour of the Defendant.

Media lawyers in particular will pay heed to the Judge's decision that this case was in the “medium range” under the Higgins guidelines, and where exactly the case fell within those guidelines having regard to the defamatory allegations posted. It is likely that the majority of defamatory publications will fall within this “medium range”, which is a broad range stretching from €50,000, which is well within the Circuit Court jurisdiction, to €125,000, which would be regarded as a large defamation award, even in a High Court case. Whether the Plaintiff will collect anything on foot of this award remains to be seen. The costs of running litigation such as this and the difficulties in collecting on foot of any award are likely to ensure that the floodgates do not open regarding defamation proceedings in respect of posts on social media platforms.